Skip to main content

Full text of "The collection and disposal of municipal waste"

See other formats


LIBRARY 



UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. 



Class 




The 

Collection and Disposal 

of 

Municipal Waste 



Bv 

Wm. F. Morse 

\^ 

Consulting Engineer 

Member of Boston Society of Civil Engineers (Sanitary Section) 

Member Franklin Institute of Philadelphia ; Member 

of the American Public Health Association 



FIRST EDITION 




Publishers: 

The Municipal Journal and Engineer 
231-241 West 39th Street 
New York 



Copyright, 1908 

By 
WM. F. MORSfc 



TO THE AMERICAN MUNICIPALITIES 



190819 



PREFACE. 

THE subject of waste collection and disposal in American and 
Canadian municipalities has from the first been a perplexing and 
difficult problem of municipal administration. It has not been 
given the attention bestowed upon other branches of municipal 
service, but most cities have followed the primitive methods in 
use from the settlement of the country and along lines that are 
now proven too unsatisfactory and too insanitary to be continued. 

There is an increasing demand that more economical and sani- 
tary results be obtained in this class of work, and to secure these 
it seems to be necessary that improved methods be employed, 
larger sums of money spent, and that the plants be designed and 
operated under more scientific and expert supervision.- 

In this work the author presents, in as compact a form as pos- 
sible, data gathered by him during nearly twenty-one years of 
continuous work along these lines, together with information col- 
lected from scattered reports, papers, and a great variety of other 
sources. 

The purpose of the author is to give a slight historical sketch 
of the work in the North American communities from the time 
when the subject first assumed general importance, about 1885, 
down to the present time. It is also 'his purpose to present an 
account of the various methods of waste collection and disposal 
that are in use in this country, together with a comparison of 
the older with the more modern systems of collection and waste 
treatment. There is also a short account of the progress of the 
work of refuse disposal in other countries of the world, for 
which th.e author is indebted to Mr. W. Francis Goodrich, of 
London. 

The author begs to acknowledge the assistance of Mr. C. 



vi PREFACE. 

Herschel Koyl and Mr. F. C. Tryon for papers upon special 
phases of the utilization .and disposal question. 

The thanks of the author are tendered for the assistance of 
other gentlemen Mr. Rudolph Hering, Mr. J. T. Fetherston, 
Mr. X. H. Goodenough, Mr. J. H. Gregory, Mr. F. K. Rhines 
and Mr. W. J. Springborn for reports upon work in their several 
localities. 

It is hoped that this book may be of assistance to those in- 
terested in the subject, and perhaps help to solve some of the 
many problems connected with the collection of waste and its 
disposal in American communities. 

WILLIAM F. MORSE. 

New York City, Oct., 1908. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

PART I. 

THE MUNICIPAL WASTE OF AMERICAN TOWNS. 

CHAPTER I. 

PAGE 
PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS ON THE PRESENT CONDITIONS OF WASTE COLLECTION 

AND DISPOSAL IN AMERICAN COMMUNITIES i 

The means of collection and disposal ; by individual service ; by licensed 
collector; by contract service; by municipal agency. Statistics of garbage 
collection in many towns. 

Disposal by feeding to swine; tipping into water; dumping and earth 
burial. Insanitary conditions of dumps and dumping grounds. Sorting 
at dumps. General prevailing conditions. 

CHAPTER II. 

THE CLASSIFICATION OF MUNICIPAL WASTES 13 

The terminology of the subject. Classification of the American Public 
Health Association. English division of wastes. Subdivision of American 
wastes. Definition of garbage by various cities. Refuse and ashes. Ex- 
creta ; collection, disposition and statistics. Dead animals and offal. Street 
sweepings. Trade and industrial waste. 

Quantities and proportions of waste. Reports of New York City com- 
mission. Tables of population, loads, volume, weights and amounts per 
capita. Composition of waste according to seasonal variations. Reports 
of Boston commission. Tables of population and quantities. Methods 
of collection and disposal. Syracuse garbage collection. Collection 
statistics of the general Government. Reasons for separate garbage 
collection. Analysis of separated parts of waste. Garbage ; its composition, 
analysis, weight and fertilizing properties. Agricultural utilization 
methods. Refuse as distinguished from rubbish. New York sanitary 
code. Proportion of refuse and rubbish in five cities. Volume and value 
of refuse. 

CHAPTER III. 

MUNICIPAL REFUSE AND RUBBISH COLLECTION AND DISPOSITION 46 

First refuse utilization station in New York. Returns and percentages 
recovered.' Boston refuse utilization station and its refuse destructor. 

vii 



viii TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

Forty-seventh Street Station, New York; amounts and composition. 
Delancey Street Station; description and reports. Collection and final 
disposition of refuse in Brooklyn. Buffalo refuse utilization station. 
Refuse disposal at Lowell, Mass. 

CHAPTER IV. 

MUNICIPAL ASHES. COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL 77 

Ashes from various coals. Analysis of ashes in New York; percentage 
of unburned coal, clinker and fine ash and values. Ashes from other 
wastes. Garbage ashes ; quantity, analysis and value. Refuse ash, analysis 
and amounts. Street sweepings and stable manure. Approximate values 
in the combined and in the separated items of waste. Methods for utiliza- 
tion of these. Reasons for utilizing values in waste. Final disposition of 
mixed municipal waste. 

PART II. 

THE DISPOSAL OF AMERICAN MUNICIPAL WASTE BY 
CREMATORIES AND INCINERATORS. 

CHAPTER V. 

METHODS OF WASTE DISPOSAL IN AMERICAN TOWNS BY INCINERATION 96 

Historical sketch of early work. Control of the health officer of towns. 
American Public Health Association ; its committees ; their reports and 
papers. Business development. Lack of accurate data in early installa- 
tions. City engineers. Earliest garbage furnaces at Allegheny City, 
Montreal, Wheeling, Pittsburgh, Chicago, Norfolk, Richmond, Trenton, 
Atlantic City, San Francisco, with reports of operation. Operating condi- 
tions of the American crematories and incinerators. 

CHAPTER VI. 

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF AMERICAN MUNICIPAL CREMATORIES 114 

From 1885 to May, 1908, with notes and observations. 
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF CREMATORIES INSTALLED BY U. S. GOVERNMENT. 

Notes. 
LIST OF GARBAGE CREMATORIES AT PUBLIC AND PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS. 

Notes. 

Number of unsuccessful furnaces. Reasons for municipal failures. 
Share of responsibility of municipal officers. An engineering problem. 
Action of several cities in appointing commissions. Reasons for slow 
progress. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. ix 

PAGE 
CHAPTER VII. 

AMERICAN GARBAGE CREMATORIES 145 

Need for a better classification of garbage furnaces. Terms now em- 
ployed. Proposed classification. American garbage crematories and their 
inventors. Engle Sanitary & Cremation Company. Dixon Sanitary Cre- 
matory Company. Davis Garbage Furnace Company. Morse-Boulger 
Garbage Destructor. Municipal Engineering Company. The Standard 
Construction Company. National Equipment Company. 

CHAPTER VIII. 

AMERICAN CREMATORIES. (Continued.) 168 

American Garbage Cremator Company. Brownlee Garbage Furnace. 
Bridgeport Boiler Works. Smith-Siemens Garbage Fprnace. Seaboard 
Garbage Cremator Company. Decarie Manufacturing Company. Dundon 
Incinerating Garbage Furnace. Bennett Garbage Crematory. Garbage 
Crematory of Lewis & Kitchen. Thackeray Incinerating Company. 
Universal Destructor Company. 

CHAPTER IX. 

PORTABLE CREMATORIES. CALORIFIC VALUES OF WASTE MATERIALS. FORMS OF 

AMERICAN FURNACE CONSTRUCTION 194 

Portable garbage crematories of Fellenbaum, McClelland, de Berard and 
Smead. New York City portable rubbish incinerator. Traveling destruc- 
tors of British builders. Calorific Values of Municipal Waste. Table of 
quantities, proportions and values in combined and separated waste. Table 
of theoretical coal equivalents. Calorific values according to seasonal 
variations. Range of values as compared with coal. Calorific values of 
other waste material. Conclusion of American furnace work. 



PART III. 

THE DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY BRITISH DESTRUCTOR 
SYSTEMS. 

CHAPTER X. 

HIGH TEMPERATURE REFUSE DESTRUCTORS 206 

The classification of destructors. American conditions. Destructors in 
American practice. Examples of successful work in this country. Division 
of destructors into groups. The cell group of British destructors. Air 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

supply. Utilization of heat. Continuous grate destructors. Heat regener- 
ation for air supply. Chimneys and dust prevention. Delivery of waste 
to the destructors. Disposal of residuums. Quantities consumed per grate 
or cell. Nuisances dependent upon temperature. Gradual development 
of high temperature in destructors. The operation of destructors without 
nuisance. Meldrum Simplex Destructors at Westmount, Seattle and 
Schenectady. Heenan and Froude Destructors at Vancouver and New 
Brighton. The Power Specialty Company. 



CHAPTER XL 

BRITISH DESTRUCTORS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD 262 

Special article by W. Francis Goodrich, M. I. C. E. First English 
destructor. Destructors combined with departments of municipal service. 
Sewerage disposal works. Uses of clinker. Results in power production 
for electricity works. Destructors combined with water works. Conti- 
nental progress in destructor installations. Germany, Switzerland, Bel- 
gium, Denmark, Russia, France. Progress in the East. Egypt, India, 
Siam, Singapore. Progress in Australia, Melbourne, Prahran, Anandale, 
Wellington, Auckland, Sydney. In South Africa and South America. 
Table of distribution of British destructors throughout the world. 



PART IV. 

THE DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY REDUCTION AND EXTRACTION 

PROCESS. 

CHAPTER XII. 

THE PROCESSES OF REDUCTION AND EXTRACTION IN THE U. S 290 

Sanitation in American towns. Necessity for improved methods. Be- 
ginning of movement in 1885. Treatment of garbage by reduction 
methods. Merz process. First plant at Buffalo. Description of apparatus. 
New Merz process. Chicago Merz plant the latest installation. 

CHAPTER XIII. 

MERZ PROCESS. (Continued.) SIMONIN PROCESS 309 

At St. Paul, Milwaukee, Paterson, St. Louis, Columbus. Reports on 
conditions in Columbus and estimated cost of construction. Simonin Ex- 
traction Process, at Providence. Notes on feeding municipal garbage to 
swine. Simonin process at Cincinnati and New Orleans, 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. xi 

PAGB 
CHAPTER XIV. 

ARNOLD REDUCTION PROCESS IN BOST' // AND NEW YORK 332 

Three Boston plants. Solvay process for the recovery of ammonia. 
General disposal work in Boston. Waste disposal in New York City. 
Reports of earlier commissions on waste disposal. Col. Waring's investi- 
gation of garbage treatment, Beginning of garbage reduction by the 
Arnold process in New York City. Barren Island reduction plant; de- 
scription; sanitary questions involved. Result of Col. Waring's work as 
Commissioner of Street Cleaning. 

CHAPTER XV. 

ARNOLD REDUCTION PROCESS IN NEW YORK, PHILADELPHIA, BALTIMORE AND 

ATLANTIC CITY , 354 

Renewal of contracts in New York and Brooklyn. Accidents by fire 
and flood at Barren Island plant. Continuation of contracts for disposal. 
Disposal of garbage and refuse in Borough of Bronx. Garbage disposal 
in Borough of Richmond. Preliminary studies of conditions and reports. 
Specifications for destructor. Establishment of destructor plant for gar- 
bage disposal. Arnold reduction plant at Philadelphia. Ashes and refuse 
of Philadelphia. Contracts for reduction by the Arnold process at Balti- 
more and Atlantic City. Early methods of disposal at Washington. 
Crematories and the Smith-Siemens incinerator. The Arnold method at 
Newark and Wilmington. 

CHAPTER XVI. 

CHAMBERLAIN OR LIQUID SEPARATING PROCESS ; OTHER PROCESSES 373 

Washington, D. C, plant of the Chamberlain process. First plant at 
Detroit. Description of apparatus. Indianapolis plant. Chamberlain 
process at Cincinnati. Holthaus Reduction Process at Bridgeport, Syra- 
cuse and New Bedford. Weislogel Process. Plant at Vincennes ; descrip- 
tion of apparatus. American Reduction Company at Reading and York. 
Penn Reduction Process at Rochester. 

CHAPTER XVII. 

EDSON REDUCTION PROCESS ; CLEVELAND MUNICIPAL PLANT ; AMERICAN EXTRAC- 
TOR PROCESS 395 

Dayton plant. Municipal reduction plant at Cleveland. Description of 
works. Report of operation, and results. Financial statement for years 
1905-6-7. American Extractor Company Process at New Bedford. Resume 
of reduction and extraction processes. Arguments in favor of reduction 
systems. 



xii TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

PART V. 

THE UTILIZATION OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

CHAPTER XVIII. 

REVENUE TO BE HAD FROM WASTE MATERIALS. METHODS OF UTILIZATION 420 

Refuse recovery by sorting. The sanitary questions involved. Refuse 
for power production. The paper manufactured in the United States. 
Need for return of waste paper from cities. The commercial value of 
garbage. Municipal reduction plants. The utilization of waste for steam 
power. Comparison of crematory and destructor methods. Operating 
costs. Municipal ashes and coal recovered. Special article by C. H. Koyl, 
C.E. The utilization of waste by gas producers. Special article by F. C. 
Tryon, C.E. Utilization by crushing and manufacture into fuel. The 
present situation of waste disposal in this country. 



LIST OF TABLES. 



TABLE No. PAGE 

I. Night-Soil Collection and Disposal 17 

II. Areas and Population of the Five Boroughs of New 

York City 20 

III. Quantities of Waste Collected by Cart Loads, New York 

City 20 

IV. Quantities of Waste by Volume, New York City 20 

V. Quantities by Weight, New York City 21 

VI. Average Weights of Refuse, New York City 21 

VII. Weights per Capita, New York City 22 

VIII. Average per Capita for Three Years, New York City. ... 22 
IX. Composition of Household Refuse by weight, New 

Brighton 22 

X. Household Refuse as Collected, New Brighton, N. Y 23 

XI. Garbage Collection, Syracuse 24 

XII. Average Daily Refuse Collection, Boston 28 

XIII. Average Weekly Refuse Collection, Boston 29 

XIV. Average Yearly Refuse Collection, Boston 31 

XV. Refuse Collections in Boston and New York City Com- 
pared 32 

XVI. Collection Statistics, U. S. Government 35 

XVII. Percentage Composition of Garbage 37 

XVIII. Chemical Analysis of Garbage 37 

XIX. Approximate Percentage of Refuse in Whole Collection . . 43 

XX. Returns from i6th St. Refuse Station, New York City ... 47 
*^ XXI. Percentage of Salable Portions in One Hundred Parts 

Refuse 48 

XXII. Quantities received at Refuse Disposal Station, Boston. . 52 

XXIII. Quantities received at 4yth St. Station, New York City. . 57 

XXIV. Quantities Sorted, 47th St. Station, New York City 57 

. . XXV. Test for Steam Power, 47th St. Station, New York City. . 57 

XXVI. Volume and Weights of Refuse, New York City 58 

- XXVII. Evaporative Tests, Delancey St. Station, New York City. 63 , 

XXVIII. Quantities of Refuse and Disposition, Buffalo 73 

XXIX. Quantities of Refuse, Four Years, Lowell 75 

XXX. Analysis and Heating Values American Coal 77 

XXXI. Analysis of Ashes of Anthracite Coal 78 

XXXII. Heating Power and Value of Waste Coal 79 

XXXIII. Analysis of Destructor Ashes 80 

XXXIV. Analysis of Garbage Ash and Wood Ashes . . . ; 82 

xiii 



XIV 



LIST OF TABLES. 



TABLE No. 

XXXV. 

XXXVI. 

XXXVII. 

XXXVIII. 

XXXIX. 

XL. 

XLI. 
XLII. 



XLIII. 

XLIV. 

XLV. 

XLVI. 

XLVII. 

XLVIII. 

XLIX. 

L. 

LI. 

LII. 

LIII. 

LIV. 

LV. 

LVI. 

LVII. 

LVIII. 

LIX. 

LX. 

LXI. 

LXII. 

LXIII. 

LXIV. 

LXV. 

LXVI. 

LXVII. 

LXVIII. 

LXIX. 

LXX. 



/ 




PAGE: 

Ashes from One Ton of Refuse and Rubbish 84 

Analysis of Street Sweepings and Stable Manure 87 

Values of Recoverable Coal and Refuse 87 

Approximate Values of Municipal Waste 87 

Analysis of Garbage Tankage 89 

Chronological List of American Garbage Crematories 

from 1885 114 

List of Garbage Crematories of U. S. Government 126 

List of Garbage Furnaces at Public Institutions and 

Business Establishments 129 

Consolidated Table of Calorific Values 203 

Theoretical Values in Equivalent Coal 204 

Calorific Values per Pound for Different Periods 204 -~ 

Laboratory Analysis Steam Ashes 205 

Range of Calorific Values of Waste 206 

Calorific Values of Various Wastes 208 

Tests, Harlan & Wolfe Destructor, Belfast 208 

Official Test, Westmount Destructor 243 

Operating Costs, Westmount Destructor 247 

Report on Seattle Destructor 252 

Report on Heenan Destructor, Vancouver 255 

Summary of Official Tests, West New Brighton 261 

Twelve Combined Destructor and Sewage Works 267 

Watford Combined Sewage and Destructor Plant 267 

Report on Eccles Destructor 268 

Powder Production, Electricity and Destructor Works ... 272 

British Destructors Throughout the World 283 

Report on Praharn Destructor 285 

Equivalent Coal in Garbage 302 

Average Monthly Collection, Milwaukee 303 

Average Daily Collection, Milwaukee 303 

Collection Statistics, Columbus 3 1 6 

Construction and Operating Expense, Columbus 317 

Collection and Disposal, Philadelphia 367 

Collection Costs, Rochester .... 392 

Collection of Ashes, Rochester 39 2 

Income and Expenses, Cleveland Reduction Plant 401 

Summary Sales and Inventory, Cleveland Reduction 

Plant -403 

Quantities Garbage Delivered, Cleveland Reduction 

Plant 403 

Cost Collection and Disposal per Ton, Cleveland Reduc- 
tion Plant . . 404 



LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. 

FIGURE PAGE 

1. The Refuse Utilization Station, Boston 49 

2. Receiving Room and Conveyor, Boston 49 

3. Power and Hand Presses, Boston 50 

4. Conveyor, Destructor and Boiler, Boston 51 

5. The Forty-seventh St. Refuse Station, New York City 54 

6. Conveyor and Sorting Bins, 47th St. Station, New York City. ... 55 

7. Charging the Incinerator, 47th St. Station, New York City. ....". 56 

8. The Delancey St. Refuse Disposal Station, New York City '59 

9. Conveyor and Sorting Bins, Delancey St., New York City 60 

10. Unloading of Scows at Sea, New York City 62 

n. Tipping Ashes and Rubbish into Scows, New York City 65 

12. The Carts for Ash Collection, Brooklyn and New York City 66 

13. Ash Bins Removed by Trolley, Brooklyn 66 

14. Method of Discharging Ash Bins, Brooklyn. 68 

i 5. Rubbish Incinerator, South Brooklyn 69 

1 6. The Refuse Utilization Station, Buffalo 70 

17. Tipping Floor and Conveyor, Buffalo 71 

1 8. Conveyor and Sorting Bins, Buffalo 71 

19. Destructor and Boiler, Buffalo 72 

20. First Garbage Crematory in U. S., Governors Island, N. Y 101 

21. Engle Cremators, World's Fair, Chicago 104 

22. Original Engle Cremator 149 

23. The Latest Engle Cremator 151 

24. The Dixon Crematory, Direct Draft i 53 

25. The Dixon Crematory, Return Draft 1 54 

26. The Dixon Crematory, Exterior Steel Case 1 54 

27. The Dixon Crematory, Fort Wayne, Ind 155 

28. The Dixon Crematory, Lexington, Ky 156 

29. Davis Garbage Furnace ; 157 

30. Thackeray Garbage :Incinerator i 58 

3 1 . Boulger Crematory, First Design 159 

32. Boulger Crematory, Latest Design 160 

33. Morse-Boulger Destructor 161 

34. Municipal Engineering Co. Crematory 162 

35. Wright Garbage Incinerating Furnace 164 

36. Branch Garbage Incinerator 166 

3 7 . Brown Garbage Cremator 1 68 

38. Brownlee Garbage Furnace 1 7 1 

39. H. B. Smith Garbage Crematory 172 

xv 



xvi LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. 

FIGURE PAGE 

40. Smith- Siemens Garbage Furnace 174 

41. Vivarttas Garbage Furnace 177 

42. Decarie Garbage Incinerator 179 

43. Decarie Fume Cremator 180 

44. Decarie Garbage Incinerator, Latest Form 181 

45. Sanitary Engineering Co. Garbage Crematory 184 

46. F. P. Smith Crematory (Plan) 185 

47. F. P. Smith Crematory, Longitudinal Section 186 

48. F. P. Smith Incinerator, Longitudinal Section 187 

49. Cross Section and Exterior, Smith Incinerator 189 

50. Morse Destructor Furnace . . . . . 192 

51. De Berard Portable Crematory 196 

52. Smead Travelling Crematory 198 

53. Meldrum Portable Destructor 200 

54. Horsfall Portable Destructor 201 

55. Fryer Cell Destructor 221 

56. Beaman & Deas Cell Destructor 222 

57. Horsfall Cell Destructor 223 

58. Warner Cell Destructor 224 

59. Sterling Double Cell Destructor 225 

60. Meldrum Continuous Grate Destructor (Plan) 227 

61. Meldrum Destructor with Boiler (Section) 228 

62. Meldrum Destructor (Cross Section) 229 

63. Meldrum Destructor (Lancashire Boiler) 230 

64. Heenan & Froude Continuous Grate Destructor (Plan and 

Section) 231 

65. Heenan & Froude Destructor 232 

66. Combined Electricity Works and Refuse Destructor, Westmount 241 

67. Hopper and Charging Holes, Westmount 245 

68. Front of Destructor, Westmount 245 

69. Boiler of Destructor, Westmount 246 

70. Plan of Destructor, Westmount 248 

71. Cross Section of Destructor, Westmount 248 

72. Exterior Destructor Building, Seattle 249 

73. Front of Destructor Building, Seattle 250 

74. The Meldrum Destructor, Seattle 251 

75. The Heenan & Froude Destructor, Vancouver 254 

76. Heenan & Froude Destructor, New Brighton 257 

77. Front of Destructor, New Brighton 258 

78. Plan and Sections, Destructor, New Brighton 259 

79. First Destructor Cells, Great Britain 263 

80. Thirty Years' Progress with British Destructors 265 

81. Destructor with Lancashire Boiler 268 

82. One Day Record Steam Pressure (Watford) 269 

83. Destructor at Stoke-on-Trent 274 

84. Destructor, Borough of Woolwich, London. 274 



LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. xvii 

FIGURE PAGE 

85 Destructor at Annandale Australia 280 

85. Destructor at Christchurch, New Zealand 280 

87 Destructor at Johannesburg. South Africa 281 

83, Destructor at Prahran. Australia 285 

87. Mortar Mill and Clinker Separator. Prahran 287 

93 Meldrum Destructor. Paris 288 

91. The Weislogel Reduction Plant. Jacksonville .... 387 

92 The Reduction Works of American Extractor Co,, New Bedford . . 406 



OF THE 

UNIVERSITY 

OF 
L! FOR tilt* 



t 

PART I. 

THE MUNICIPAL WASTE OF AMERICAN TOWNS. 

CHAPTER I. 

THE PRESENT CONDITIONS OF WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL 
IN AMERICAN COMMUNITIES. 

The production of waste and effete matter is the penalty of 
living. Everything that enters into the life of the person which 
by assimilation sustains Nature, or becomes a part of his environ- 
ment, is subject to change and the gradual process of decay, and 
must be removed, since its accumulation will inevitably produce 
annoyance, discomfort and insanitary conditions tending to shorten 
life. 

If this be true of individual cases, it applies still more closely 
when individuals are gathered into families and communities 
and the larger associations of towns and cities; hence, the need 
for cleanliness, as applied to the whole body politic, becomes im- 
perative for the common protection. 

Taking the family as the unit of communal life, there was at 
first no trouble in the disposal of waste matters; as the com- 
munity increased in numbers, the primitive methods of dealing 
with effete matter, used by the individual and the family, were 
extended and enlarged to meet the increased production. The 
garbage was fed to swine or dumped on the nearest vacant 
ground, into adjacent swamps or ravines, or thrown into the 
nearest stream or ocean bay. No particular care or oversight 
was exercised; none was at first thought to be needed, the chief 
purpose being to get the material out of sight, if possible out of 
mind, at the least cost and trouble. 

FEEDING TO SWINE. 

In the rural districts and smaller towns, each family kept a pig, 
raised on the family swill and slaughtered at the approach of cold 

I 




2 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

weather. As population increased this became objectionable, 
and the swill was often given away for the cost of removal, and 
afterwards sold to farmers as food for stock. As the municipali- 
ties became alive to the need for public collection and removal, 
they arranged with contractors for its regular collection, or al- 
lo x wed these to make private terms with the individual citizen. 
his was almost the universal custom in New England towns 
and is still the method there most commonly used. /UlLJto 1884, 
Boston sold the whole of its swill collection for delivery by wagon 
and train to farmers in Massachusetts,, New Hampshire and 
Vermont.^ With the exception of four years, 1890-94, Providence 
has always sold its garbage, as do Pawtucket, Fall River, Taunton, 
Brockton, Newton, Cambridge, Brookline, Somerville, Maiden, 
Lynn, Lawrence, Salem, Haverhill, Chelsea, Lowell, Springfield, 
Holyoke, New Haven, New Britain, and many smaller places. 
Several of the Western cities St. Paul, Denver, Omaha, Sag- 
maw, Bay City, Superior, Cedar Rapids continue this custom. 
The city of Worcester, Mass., maintains a municipal hog-farm, 
from which it derives a very considerable revenue. In 1903 the 
return from the sale of pork, pigs, tallow, etc., was $11,941. The 
cost of collection of garbage was $18,140. 'The appropriation 
from the city was $6,000, which represents the net cost of collec- 
tion and disposal for the year. 

This custom of feeding is advocated by some health officials 
as being economical, not more objectionable than some methods 
of reduction or cremation and capable of being carried on with 
profit, and very little or no nuisance, if proper attention be given 
to transportation and feeding. The cost at Providence for collec- 
tion and removal of garbage has averaged, for thirteen years, i$ l /2 
cents per capita per annum. In other towns the profit from the 
sale of garbage or from the sale of swine fed by the contractor, 
reduces the cost of collection one-third to one-half. 

But there are some drawbacks to this admittedly economical 
system. Milk from badly nourished cows fed on swill is poor 
in quality, often offensive to taste and smell, and is condemned 
by nearly every health authority. Garbage-fed pork is liable to 
trichinosis, as shown by the reports of the Massachusetts State 
Board of Health (1889) when thirteen per cent, of hogs fed on 
the public garbage of Boston were subject to this disease, a far 



THE MUNICIPAL WASTE OF AMERICAN TOWNS. 3 

larger proportion than is found in Western swine. The dumping 
of municipal garbage in large amounts on open ground for feed- 
ing is attended with consequences objectionable in the highest 
degree. No one who has been at these feeding grounds in hot 
weather, and seen the process, can say it is sanitary. The clouds 
of flies and insects, the multiplied streams of the lowest forms 
of animal life radiating from heaps of fermenting swill, the 
nauseating odors arising from the polluted, trampled ground, all 
unite to create nuisance. It has sometimes happened that epi- 
demics of hog cholera have swept away the whole herd, entailing 
expense for their disposal and renewal. 

The chief claim for this means of disposal is on the score of 7 
economy, since it appears to be almost the only way as yet 
devised by which a town can recover some return for the outlay 
for collection and disposal. The foremost advocate of this 
method, after stating the arguments for and against the practice, 
says, "By this attempt to minimize the evil of the disposal of 
garbage by feeding to swine, the writer does not intend to main- 
tain that it is a desirable method, and would simply venture the 
opinion that, under certain conditions, it is not a very bad 
method." 

The smaller cities are not alone in this way of treatment. The 
large hotels and restaurants of New York City sell their garbage 
to. private parties as food for stock. The collection is made, under 
permit from the Health Department, in barrels conveyed in 
large covered water-tight wagons, an empty barrel being left to 
take the place of each full one removed. All collections are made 
at night or in the early morning hours. The swill is emptied into 
large kettles, where it is cooked for twenty-four hours, or until s 
the return of the wagons on the following day. The grease v_J 
rising to the top is skimmed off, pressed, and run into barrels for 
sale, the remaining contents being fed to pigs or cattle, mixed 
for the latter with hay or bran. I This cooking is essential to fit 
the swill for feeding. Formerly, the high price of grease yielded 
a profit from this source alone, but at 2,^/2. cents per pound it is 
claimed that the grease product fails to pay the cost of the coal 
burned. The quantity of garbage thus treated is estimated at 
30,000 tons per year. 



4 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

THE INDIVIDUAL METHOD OF DISPOSAL. 

Those who pay any attention to the subject are familiar with 
garbage dumps in all stages of beginning, growth and completion, 
since there is no release from the ever present evil. In the 
early days of any town, the vacant lots in the suburbs are gar- 
nished with all sorts of refuse matter, until some strong objection 
is made by the property owner. As the town grows, this refuse 
is consolidated at convenient points where low ground offers an 
excuse or roads need to be raised in grade. The dumps then 
include putrescible matter which under the hot sun of summer 
gives out noxious odors. A ravine or valley on the line of a 
small stream becomes a favorite place of deposit, or ground 
excavated for sand, clay, gravel or stone offers a favorable point 
because a large quantity can be disposed of in a small area. The 
cartmen, being under no restriction, select the nearest place to 
dump their loads, where there is least trouble or objection. Some- 
times ashes or earth covers the surface, but as it is nobody's 
business to see that the dumps are kept covered, nobody cares 
much for the consequences. 

THE LICENSE SYSTEM. 

Under pressure of complaints and with an increasing knowl- 
edge of better sanitary conditions, the town authorities regulate 
the dumping of putrescible matters, place the service under in- 
spection of the Health Department, and license certain cartmen 
to collect and remove the waste. It is usually made obligatory 
to employ these men, the cost of the work being paid by the 
individual householder according to the objectionable character 
of the waste, the quantity, and the distance it must be hauled 
for dumping. As the population increases, the expenses rise. If 
there are no sewers, the night-soil collection and removal adds 
to the burden. Those who are ready and willing to encourage 
civic cleanliness are, in a sense, compelled to pay for the whole, 
for many refuse to avail themselves of a service which should 
be employed by all. (The dumps are often a serious interference 
with the rights of adjoining property holders, and further re- 
moval from the town entails more cost for service and inspection. 
The number of collectors increases, it is difficult to establish and 
maintain a satisfactory standard for equipment of carts and 



THE MUNICIPAL WASTE OF AMERICAN TOWNS. 5 

apparatus, and as the town continues to grow, this service be- 
comes unwieldly and unsatisfactory. 

THE CONTRACT SYSTEM. 

Succeeding the system by licensed collectors comes the method 
of collection and disposal of city wastes by contract for a specific 
term. This may include the whole or a part of the waste ; usually 
it includes the garbage only, leaving the ashes and rubbish to be 
dealt with by the licensed men or by private contract. 

The service is performed daily, or every other day, for the 
thickly settled part of the town, and bi-weekly for the remainder. 
The contract provides for a standard equipment of carts, to be 
kept clean, the collection to be made without nuisance, the dis- 
posal to be at places designated, or by satisfactory apparatus. 

The contract system is the most convenient way for the authori- 
ties T but less efficient than the municipal service. Under stress of 
competition, the contractor is often compelled to work for a 
small margin of profit, yielding poor service and giving rise to \ 
complaints. There is, in fact, but a limited responsibility, the 
contractor seeking to do the least possible work for the greatest 
payment. But this is often the only way the work can be done, 
and when performed under vigilant inspection and rigid enforce- 
ment of terms of contract, fairly good service can be secured. 

THE MUNICIPAL SYSTEM. 

In this case the town does all the work with its own equipment 
and employees. The preliminary expenses are large, but the 
force can often be used for other municipal work, dividing the 
cost. The responsibility for cleanly work is better defined, com- 
plaints are more promptly attended to, and with good executive 
officers the employees can be brought to take pride in their work 
and give the most efficient service. jWhile most of the larger cities "~ 
and towns have municipal service, and many smaller ones the 
contract or licensed methods, the greater number of places still 
use the primitive ways of treating waste. There is no rule of 
general application .to methods of waste collection, but there is 
an evident preference for the municipal system if it can be had 
at not too great a cost. .One eminent authority says :[_^ There ap- 
pears to be a well-nigh unanimous demand on the part of health 
officers, and oftentimes of the public generally, fpj the municipal 



6 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

collection of garbage." If municipal ownership be of advantage 
in other civic departments, it certainly should be in this, so inti- 
mately connected as it is with the health and comfort of the public. 

TIPPING INTO WATER. 

Towns on the seaboard, that could conveniently do so, formerly 
dumped everything overboard, regardless of consequences. New 
York City for many years sent outside the harbor thousands 
of tons of waste which ultimately floated to neighboring shores 
and gave rise to endless complaints. This was stopped, in part, 
by Col. G. E. Waring, and of late has wholly ceased, except when 
the work of disposal is interrupted by fires, or other accidents at 
the reduction plant. The garbage is now reduced at the Barren 
Island plant of the Sanitary Reduction Company, the ashes and 
street sweepings deposited behind bulkheads at Riker's Island and 
the rubbish partly sorted out and burned and partly dumped with 
the ashes. With few exceptions, all the northern seaboard towns 
now deal with their wastes on their own land. But jNewport and 
Lynn send their garbage to sea, ano^ Boston annually . deposits 
outside its harbor 122,000 loads of ashes and street sweepings. 

Many of the inland cities on the great rivers continue to use 
the primitive method of stream dumping. A report made by the 
I Health Commissioner of a Western city, some years ago, gave 
ngures of startling magnitude. According to this "eight cities 
dumped into the Mississippi River, 152,675 tons of garbage, 
manure and offal, 108,250 tons of night-soil and 3,765 animals. 
Four cities on the Missouri River discharged 36,110 tons of 
garbage, 22,400 tons of night-soil and 31,160 dead animals. Five 
cities on the Ohio River dumped 46,700 tons of garbage, 21,150 
tons of night-soil and 5,100 dead animals." 

The present situation on the great rivers is somewhat improved, 
but St. Louis still continues to dump annually 179,000 loads of 
rubbish and street dirt into the river; while many towns use the 
Mississippi and Missouri rivers as a common receptacle for all 
wastes. New Orleans discharges all its waste into the river, but 
there are no cities below it to receive the doubtful benefit of this 
proceeding. 

The General Government has published a digest of the laws* 

*Department of the Interior, U. S. Geological Survey; Water Supply No. 152, 1905. 



THE MUNICIPAL WASTE OF AMERICAN TOWNS. 7 

forbidding the pollution of inland waters, which may be studied 
with advantage. The book is a comprehensive review of all 
State laws on the subject, with citation of cases and authorities. 
The principles laid down are briefly : 

a. No riparian owner of a stream may appropriate all the 1 water that 
comes to him, neither may he so corrupt or pollute it as to injure the other 
owners by diminishing the value of their property in the natural stream. 

b. Whenever the pollution of a stream or other body of water injuri- 
ously affects the health, or materially interferes with the peace "and com- 
fort of a large and indefinite number of people in the neighborhood, such 
pollution becomes what is known as a public nuisance. . . . When 
there is a public nuisance caused by the pollution of water, it is the duty 
of public authorities to cause its abatement, and their right to do so has 
been sustained in numerous cases. 

c. Where municipalities are expressly authorized by statute to con- 
struct a system of sewerage, and to cause the sewage matter to be dis- 
charged into any particular waters, the statutory authority is to be so 
exercised, subject to the implied condition that such discharge will not 
constitute a nuisance. 

d. Speaking generally, jurisdiction over the pollution of waters in the 
United States is confined to the several States, except so far as such 
powers are restricted by the National Constitution or expressly delegated 
thereby to the General Government. 

STATISTICS OF GARBAGE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL. 

Several attempts have been made to collect statistics on waste 
collection and disposal, but all have met with very indifferent suc- 
cess. The records of most American towns on this subject are 
incomplete and badly kept. No standard of measurement is taken 
for a basis, the vague report of so many cartloads being usually 
considered sufficient; there are few reports of cart capacity and 
no knowledge of the average weights at different seasons of the 
year ; the weights and volume of different classes of waste are not 
separately tabulated. The percentage of moisture in garbage, 
of unburned coal in ashes, of salable paper and rags in refuse, 
and of the proportion of manure in street sweepings all these 
points must be arrived at by comparison with the returns and 
reports from one or two large cities. Manifestly conditions and 
surroundings in different places vary widely, and each individual 
place should have its own system of records, with a basis for 
measurement common to all. 

In 1902 an inquiry was made by Messrs. Winslow & Hansen, 
of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, into** the general 
facts of garbage collection and disposal in 161 representative 



8 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

cities of the United States. These range in population from 
28,000 up to the largest, situate in all parts of the country, and 
include the most progressive and active as well as some of the 
least enterprising. The reports include the figures for collection 
service separated from other matters, as follows : 

Number 
Methods of Garbage Collection of Qities. 

Municipal Collection System 54 

Contract Collection System 48 

Private Parties 41 

No Systematic Collection. / 12 

Not Reported 6 

Total 161 

It is understood that the term "private parties" includes the 
collection by the individual and license system, as opposed to 
contract and municipal methods. The statement in the paper of 
the authors is that out of 155 places twenty-nine have no sys- 
tematic method ; in 146 places reporting on collection method, 
sixty-one adopt the municipal plan, and in eighty-five the work is 
done by contractors. Almost universally, the ashes are dumped 
on low ground or used for filling, but in a few cases they are 
dumped, in whole or in part, into the nearest water. Rubbish is 
dumped with ashes in seventy-four places, burned on the ground 
in twenty-six, cremated in furnaces or utilized in nineteen, and 
thrown into water in six. The means of garbage disposal are thus 
stated : 

Dumping on land 44 

Burning in dumps 9 

Dumping in water 14 

Plowing into ground 18 

Feeding to stock 41 

Cremation in furnaces 27 

Reduction or utilization 19 

Irregular disposition 1 1 



NOTE. In several places different methods are used in different parts of the same 
city. Thus, in Boston 49,000 tons are delivered to a reduction company and 15,000 
are taken away by contractors and presumably fed to swine or dumped with ashes aJid 
refuse on land. 

It would appear, from this report, that the primitive methods 
are still the most popular; as out of 161 places only 102, or 63 per 
cent., have any systematic methods for collection, and out of 147 
reporting on methods of disposal only forty-six, or less than 
one-third, have any improved methods of final disposition. 



THE MUNICIPAL WASTE OF AMERICAN TOWNS. 9 

If this be true of 161 places of the best class, it is still more 
significant when towns smaller in population and of less enterprise 
in sanitary science are considered. 

Mr. M. N. Baker, in the Municipal Year Book for 1902, says : 
'The stubbornness with which most American communities cling 
to primitive and unsanitary methods of garbage disposal is shown 
by the fact that only ninety-seven of the 1,524 cities and towns 
included in the Year Book have reported either garbage crema- 
tion or reduction plants." 

That is to say, only 6.3 per cent, of the towns of the United 
States, having a population of 3,000 and upwards, have in fifteen 
years made any real progress on the lines of enlightened and 
scientific disposition of the communal wastes. This is not a very 
encouraging result for the expenditure of time, energy and money 
in this work, but still it represents progress which, though small 
in itself, will serve to indicate what will be the future of the work 
now fairly under way. 

INSANITARY CONDITIONS PRODUCED BY DUMPING. 

The deposit of organic matter in thin layers upon ground fully 
exposed to the salutary influences of light and air is far more 
sanitary than when the putrescible waste is buried in mass. De- 
composition in the open air proceeds rapidly by the propagation 
of aerobic bacteria which, assisted by the absorbent action of 
the earth, resolve the compounds into simpler forms, while the 
disengaged gases are oxidized by the air. 

But when deposited in masses and covered, the chemical 
changes are produced by anaerobic organisms only, the released 
gases are greater in volume with intensely disagreeable odors, and 
these find exit through the adjacent soil. Even when mixed with 
ashes the putrescible matter is not rapidly changed, but continues 
in a putrefactive state for long periods. Many instances are re- 
ported of the presence of organic matter in offensive and danger- 
ous forms, though years have passed since its deposit. 

When ground made by such methods is covered by buildings, 
the health of the occupants is endangered. The statement made 
to the writer by the Health Commissioner of one of our large 
cities was that the continued presence of cases of diphtheria and 
scarlet fever in houses standing on ground filled with waste was 



io THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

undoubtedly due to the, insanitary conditions of the foundations. 
These diseases followed the line of previous waste dumping, 
while adjoining dwellings on original ground were comparatively 
free. 

Dr. Ezra Hunt, of the State Board of Health of New Jersey, 
says : 

"Whole groups of zymotic diseases are traceable to ground conditions. 
When, as in some parts, soils are composed of an accumulation of decay- 
ing matters or of foul material removed from the streets, the building of 
houses over it may conceal but cannot destroy the contamination. More 
or less of the foul air must find its way out of the soil and endanger the 
health of the people living upon it." 

It is stated by some eminent medical men that the continued 
tipping of refuse near South American cities largely accounts 
for the yellow fever scourge. That this standing menace to health 
is now becoming understood is evidenced by the fact that one of 
the largest South American cities is seeking for means to dispose 
of 400,000 cubic yards of refuse, the accumulation of centuries, 
deposited in the immediate vicinity of the city. 
* It may be said that there is a general consensus of opinion, all 
over the world, that this practice of tipping organic waste and 
putrescible matter of any sort upon land or into small bodies of 
water, objectionable and filthy in itself and productive of nuisance 
and obnoxious conditions, will, if continued, cause the inception of 
certain classes of disease which otherwise would be avoided. 

There is an aesthetic side to the question that should be con- 
sidered the continued presence of these unsightly heaps of refuse 
matter on the outskirts of towns is not agreeable to the sight 
of residents or prospective citizens. Though care be taken to 
keep dumps covered, there are always floating paper, straw, litter 
and light particles scattered by the wind that cannot be controlled, 
and too often the bases of these heaps terminate in stagnant water, 
formed by the rains percolating through the mass. 

One Health Commissioner says : 

"Hauling of garbage to the dump pile is certainly .not garbage disposal, 
but only the removal of filth from one locality to another. The germs 
of deadly diseases are deposited on the dump piles coming from the ash 
barrels of infected houses, and are in turn carried by flies, mosquitoes, 
cats, rats and dogs and by the wind into the homes of our people who 
are thus made ill, and not infrequently death ensues from such out-of-date, 
outrageous practice. Such methods are not in keeping with the teaching 
of the progressive spirit of to-day, or in harmony with claims our city 
would want to assume. The public dumps are made the receptacle of old 



THE MUNICIPAL WASTE OF AMERICAN TOWNS. n 

mattresses, rags and filth of every description; they are unsightly, un- 
sanitary and discreditable. The present dilemma can be met with more 
carts and more active service, but the final solution, according to present 
lights, must lie in the cremation of all garbage." 

REFUSE SORTING AT THE DUMPS. 

When municipal and private waste taken to dumps contains 
anything that can be recovered and sold, it is picked out and taken 
to market. As a rule, the trash collection will have paper of many 
kinds, books, cardboard, rags, carpets, bagging, clothes, shoes, 
bottles, iron, and a host of miscellaneous articles of no service 
to the original owner, but of some small value when brought to- 
gether in quantities. When this mixed mass is tipped at the edge 
of the dump it is pulled apart and sorted by men, often by 
^vomen and children, who make this their livelihood. 

The recovered things, covered with dirt and dust, often satu 
rated with filth, in the last stages of decay or usefulness, are 
thrown into heaps until enough accumulate for a cartload. The 
dry paper is roughly baled on the spot; the wet rags and paper 
are exposed to sun and air for drying ; the clothing, bottles, iron, 
etc., are conveyed back to the town and again sorted and sold 
for junk. This is done in almost every place where there is a 
licensed or contract collection service, and many towns having 
municipal service permit it on condition that the dumps are kept 
leveled off without expense to the town. 

TJie system has to recommend it only the fact that many poor 
people get a precarious living, and that contractors recover enough 
of value to enable them to do the collection work cheaper than 
they otherwise could. Some large cities sell the rights for picking, 
and some positively prohibit all sorting, but most pay no attention 
to the custom and allow its continuance unless complaints be made 
by adjoining property holders. 

The recovery of these articles, as usually carried out, is ob- 
jectionable for several reasons. It is not sanitary, as all persons 
connected with it are necessarily exposed to dust, dirt and possible 
infection from contaminated matters. The recovered portions 
again handled in sorting and baling, are in too filthy a condition 
to be returned to the town. The practice increases the nuisance 
of the dump, and is a frequent source of complaints. The refuse 
is not finally disposed of or rendered inoffensive, but becomes 
subject to further inspection and possible expense. 



12 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

This recovery of the marketable constituents of refuse, if done 
at all, should be under municipal oversight and regulation, and 
the articles saved the property of the town should be credited 
to it as an asset against the expense of the collection service. The 
agency by which this work can be done in a sanitary and profitable 
way will be considered later. 

The method of waste disposal at dumps has been the subject 
of many reports by the various health and sanitary associations, 
the State associations of the Health Officers, the civic improve- 
ment leagues and the clubs and societies for the betterment of 
municipal conditions and all, without exception, condemn the 
method as usually practiced, and in many instances cite particular 
cases where epidemics of diseases are traced directly to the pres- 
ence of these piles of decaying matter. 

When in some cases this means of disposal seems to be the 
only practicable one, a stricter oversight of the collections and 
more attention to the final processes at the dumps will do much to 
mitigate the evil consequences. 

This question is now discussed with greater interest since the 
latest reports showing that the common house fly, which finds its 
best breeding places in these piles of waste, can carry the bacteria 
of some forms of zymotic diseases for long distances. 



CHAPTER II. 

THE CLASSIFICATION OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

Terminology: The Need of Definite Terms. There is need 
of a better defined vocabulary of specific terms for use in discuss- 
ing this subject, as the words and phrases now employed for the 
purpose frequently have different meanings in different places 
or when used by different writers. 

The American Public Health Association defines the various 
classes of municipal waste as follows : 

ORGANIC. 

Garbage The rejected food wastes. 

Night-soil The contents of vaults and cesspools. 

Sewage Water-conveyed excreta. 

Offal The refuse from slaughter houses, and animal sub- 
stances only. 

INORGANIC. 

Ashes Household, steam and factory 

Refuse Combustible articles from all sources; also glass, 

iron, crockery, house sweepings and generally 
everything from the house not included in gar- 
bage and ashes. 

Street sweepings Compounded of organic and inorganic substances. 

This classification is accurate and comprehensive, but it is ex- 
tended, and should be condensed for general use. Nearly every 
writer uses terms for defining particular items that are appli- 
cable to others quite dissimilar in nature. Some invent new words 
and phrases that befog the subject-matter. In describing appa- 
ratus and machinery there is frequently a conflict of technical 
terms which are not common to all, and in reckoning quantities 
there is the same uncertainty for lack of a definite standard of 
measurement. This confusion in nomenclature is largely due to 
the fact that waste disposal by modern methods is a comparatively 
new subject, with a very limited literature in this country, and 
with foreign terms and precedents not always applicable to our 
conditions. The terms employed by the author are those estab- 

13 



14 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

lished by the American Public Health Association, with such 
modifications as are suggested by the conditions attending prac- 
tical use. 

In Great Britain the general term "towns' refuse" sometimes 
called "dust" is applied to the whole miscellaneous waste col- 
lection of the town. It includes animal and vegetable matter 
("soft core"), ashes, breeze (cinders mixed with unburned coal), 
bones, rags, paper, glass, iron, metals, crockery ("hard core") 
dust and dirt. This is placed, at the house, in a general receptacle 
called the ashbin, and taken from there in a mixed condition for 
final disposal. Where there is no sewerage system, the excreta 
are received by the earth-closet, pail or pan method, and treated 
and disposed of apart from other refuse. 

The American term "municipal waste" is held to include the 
whole miscellaneous city collection of rejected foods, rubbish, 
ashes and street sweepings. But there is here a further sub- 
division of wastes, and a separate collection of each which has 
brought specific terms into use. 

"Garbage" means the animal and vegetable matters removed 
from houses, stores, and markets. It does not include dead 
animals, night-soil, slaughter-house offal, street sweepings, ashes 
or cinders, or anything but organic household waste subject to 
rapid decay. 

This term is subject to modification in various places, as in 
New England, where "swill," meaning rejected foods only, is 
used instead of "garbage." In Philadelphia it is known as "slop." 
In some places it is called "offal," and in the South and some 
parts of the West "garbage" includes rubbish or refuse, but not 
ashes. 

Definition of Garbage. Where reduction methods are em- 
ployed, garbage is more strictly defined. In New York City it 
means "refuse of an organic nature consisting of swill, every 
accumulation that attends the preparation, decay, dealing in, 
storage of, meats, fish, fowls, birds or vegetables, including all 
food wastes, and not including street sweepings and not con- 
taining more than 5 per centum by weight of other refuse." 
Buffalo defines it as "all kitchen or table waste of an animal or 
vegetable nature, vegetables, fish, meat, bones, fat and all offal, 
carrion and general kitchen refuse, as clear of ashes and rubbish 



THE MUNICIPAL WASTE OF AMERICAN TOWNS. 15 

as it is possible to keep same/' The Chicago definition is, "any 
and all rejected, abandoned or discarded waste of household, 
vegetable or animal food, offal and swill." In Washington it is 
"the refuse of animal or vegetable matter which has been used or 
intended for food." 

The word "garbage" is used in places where a clear distinction 
is required as to the character of the organic waste, and as now 
commonly used, the word is limited to rejected food waste in all I 
its forms, and will be so employed by the author in referring to ' 
waste. 

In some sections of the country waste is not separated except 
by excluding ashes. Indianapolis provides that the word garbage 
shall be taken to mean all organic household waste, offal, animal 
or vegetable matter, such as has been prepared for or intended 
to serve as food, and in addition shall be construed to mean other 
industrial refuse, such as paper, cans, bottles, discarded tin ware, 
iron, and other similar material, excepting ashes, household sweep- 
ings and sweepings from stores, business houses and apartments. 
Though this wording is doubtful, it is assumed that sweepings 
and ashes are removed separately. 

"Refuse" includes all combustible matters like wood, paper, 
straw, rags, mattresses, broken furniture, house sweepings, dis- 
carded clothing of all kinds; also glass, iron, tin cans, crockery, 
and the miscellaneous collection not comprised under garbage, 
ashes or street sweepings. 

"Ashes" includes the household ashes from all varieties of 
coal and wood, but not steam or factory ashes from boilers or the 
large furnaces in hotels and trade and manufacturing establish- 
ments. 

"Excreta" When there are no sewers, the night-soil contained 
in vaults and cesspools must for sanitary reasons be removed 
periodically. This is usually done by the license method, the 
contractor for the work providing a suitable excavating apparatus, 
and sealed tanks or barrels for transportation. The cost of re- 
moval is paid by the property owner under a sliding scale of 
charges fixed by the town, and disposal is usually made outside 
the city limits by dumping or burying, sometimes by composting. 

The final disposition of this very dangerous matter should be 
under the strict superintendence and frequent inspection of town 



16 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

health officers, and should not be left to the convenience or caprice 
of the contractor. 

Too often its insanitary disposal on ground draining into the 
water supply of the town has been accompanied by disastrous 
epidemics of typhoid fever, as witnessed by the outbreaks of 
this disease at Plymouth and Butler, Pa. ; Ithaca, N. Y., and 
Columbus, Ohio. 

Excreta are sometimes composted with earth or manures, and 
many attempts have been made to manufacture a commercial 
product called "Poudrette" by a process of drying the excreta 
and mixing with marl and other substances, but the offensive 
character of the material, together with its uncertain value in 
comparison with other fertilizers of standard composition, has 
made the method unprofitable. 

In one or two places where the collection of night-soil is done 
under the direct charge of the town, the large returns received 
have paid for the cost and left a surplus to apply to the general 
expense of other waste collection. 

Night-soil can be disposed of by fire in specially constructed 
furnaces, and many thousands of barrels of this waste have been 
and are now thus destroyed annually. The removal of excreta by 
a sewerage system is a separate department of municipal work, 
independent of the disposal of other wastes. 

The statistics of collection and disposal of night-soil are re- 
ported from 36 cities by Prof. A. Prescott Folwell, secretary of 
the American Society of Municipal Improvements, in the Munici- 
pal Journal and Engineer, of New York, July i, 1908. This in- 
formation was obtained for the benefit of the members of the 
society and includes reports from eight cities of the first class, 
six of the second, seventeen of the third, and five of the fourth 
class, and is condensed in the table following : 

The amount of night-soil removed depends entirely upon local 
conditions and the sewerage systems in each place. In this table 
the yearly quantities vary from 3,000 barrels in one place to 492,- 
ooo barrels from another city. The expense of removal is almost 
invariably a charge upon the property owner, the frequency of 
removal depending upon conditions, usually once a year and 
within certain months. The cost is usually fixed by ordinance, 
and varies from 33^ cents to 75 cents per barrel of from 36 to 



THE MUNICIPAL WASTE OF AMERICAN TOWNS. 



NTROL OF 
REMOVAL 



F CONSIDERED 
SATISFACTORY 



EXPENSE 
BORNE 
BY 



SJ9DIJJO }i 



9UOQ 9q 



ON 



sjapjoqasnojj 



) 



f spjJBg Xg 



i3 Xg 



00 NO >- 



i8 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

45 gallons. When no regulations are made as to cost, the con- 
tractor makes his own agreement. The control of the vault 
cleaning service is under inspection of the city officers or boards 
of health. The final disposition, if outside the city limits, re- 
ceives but limited attention, unless complaints are made by ad- 
joining townships. 

"Dead Animals and Offal" In nearly, every one of the larger 
towns the carcasses of larger animals, such as horses, cattle, 
swine and sheep, are taken by private parties who conduct render- 
ing works which are not directly under the control of the town 
except as concerning the sanitary operation of the plant. A 
payment is usually made by the town, or by the owner of the dead 
animal, for its removal by the rendering company in a special 
wagon built for the purpose. 

By various processes the carcasses are converted into many 
forms of commercial articles or substances which afford a reve- 
nue. Smaller animals, such as dogs, cats, rats, etc., are not usually 
thus treated. They go with the ashes to the dumps or with the 
night-soil for burial. Where crematory furnaces are installed, 
these carcasses are burned with the waste, and where there are no 
rendering plants the carcasses of the larger animals are also easily 
disposed of in this manner. Sometimes the collection and dis- 
posal of large dead animals is a part of the general contract for 
disposal of garbage, but it is usually a separate contract. 

Condemned animal food, market and butcher shop offal, and 
all miscellaneous animal refuse are also disposed of by the private 
rendering companies without cost to the town. Generally every 
remnant of animal life can be utilized in one form or another by 
various economical means. 

"Street Sweepings," while included under the general term of 
municipal waste, are not in usual practice collected or disposed 
of except by the town itself, separately from the other wastes, 
and they are not included in the contracts for collection and 
disposal of household wastes. 

Trade and Industrial Wastes. There are many kinds of trade 
and industrial wastes which are not generally included in munici- 
pal disposal work, but which are still under control of the town 
and are sometimes provided for by its agency. 



THE MUNICIPAL WASTE OF AMERICAN TOWNS. 19 

When small in amount and organic in character, requiring fre- 
quent removal, the town sometimes comes to the aid of the 
factory, or the merchant, and makes disposal of the waste by its 
own means, for a fixed sum. When, however, the weight or 
volume of the waste is large, and the material is of inorganic 
character, means are often provided by the town for its trans- 
portation and final disposition by enlarging its own equipment, 
and it then receives payment pro rata for the quantity handled. 
In such cases the cost of the work is a matter of private agree- 
ment, the town performing its duty by publicly assisting a private 
enterprise for the common good of the community. But the 
point at which municipal control ceases and private responsibility 
begins is uncertain and indefinite and the fruitful source of much 
trouble. 

In some localities the right to have waste removed by the 
town is determined by the number of persons or families in the 
building or buildings; or again, the volume of waste must not 
be over a stated amount; or only certain kinds of waste, strictly 
defined, may be removed. Manifestly, for a town to favor a 
private individual or corporation, by the removal and disposal of 
private refuse without a return of some sort, is an injustice to 
the rest of the community, and an exercise of arbitrary power 
which should not be permitted. 

As a rule, all classes of private trade and industrial waste, and 
household waste of all kinds above a certain fixed quantity, must 
be removed and disposed of at the cost and risk of the parties 
concerned, and not through the agency of the town, unless pay- 
ment be made of the cost of the work so performed. But the 
town is expected to furnish ground for dumping, or other satis- 
factory means for the disposal of all waste, when collection is 
made by private agency. 

QUANTITIES AND PROPORTIONS OF WASTE. 

It has been very difficult to give accurate data determining 
the quantities of waste materials from American towns. Until 
the last three years there has been little attention paid to the tabu- 
lation of amounts, and hardly any effort made to fix the relative 
proportions of each class or give the seasonal variations. But 
the investigations lately made by commissions and engineers in 
some of the larger cities have shown the value of accurate details 



2o THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

in this direction, and by their assistance the towns are better able 
to say exactly with what amounts they are dealing, and to govern 
their costs of collection and disposal accordingly. 

The study of this question, in respect to amounts and propor- 
tions, made in New York by the commission appointed by Mayor 

TABLE II. AREAS AND POPULATIONS OF THE FIVE BOROUGHS OF 
NEW YORK CITY. 



BOROUGHS 


Area in 
vSquare 
Miles 


PoPULATIONf 


1904 


1905 


1906 


Manhattan 
The Bronx 


22 .00 
40 . 50 
77-50 

130 .00 

57-25 


2,060,041 
3OI,l6l 
1,349,129 

199-359 
74,969 


2,112,528 
326,324 
1,394,766 
210,949 
76,95 6 


2,165,015 
351,487 

1,440,403 
222,539 

78,943 


Brooklyn 


Queens 


Richmond 
Greater New York. . 


327-25 


3,984,659 


4,121,523 


4-258,387 



tCalculated from United States Census of 1900, using same rate of increase as between 
1890 and 1900. 

TABLE III. QUANTITIES BY CART LOAD, NEW YORK CITY. 



TOTAL REFUSE 





1904 


1905 


1906 


Manhattan : 
The Bronx: 
Brooklyn : 
Queens: 
Richmond : 

New Yc 


Number of cart loads . . . 
Number of cart loads . . . 
Number of cart loads . . . 
Number of cart loads . . . 
Number of cart loads . . . 


1,928,946 
163,170 
7 J 4 995 


1,998,820 
178,529 
740,755 
89,756 
64,400 


2,130,646 
182,640 
. 738,058 
125,122 
72,979 




>rk City 






3,072,260 


3,249 445 







TABLE IV. QUANTITIES BY VOLUME, NEW YORK CITY. 





1904 


1905 


1906 


Manhattan : 
The Bronx : 
Brooklyn : 
Queens: 
Richmond 

New Y< 


Volume in cubic yards . . 
Volume in cubic yards . . 
Volume in cubic yards . . 
Volume in cubic yards . . 
Volume in cubic yards 


5,009,179 

405,424 
1,930,082 


5 oio 607 

435,453 
2,081,200 

215, 7 11 
96,600 


5,422,643 

452,439 
2,059,188 

3 J 5-9C9 
109,469 


Drk City 






7-839-571 


8,359,648 







TOTAL REFUSE 



THE MUNICIPAL WASTE OF AMERICAN TOWNS. 



21 



George B. McClellan, consisting of Messrs. H. De B. Parsons, 
Rudolph Hering and Samuel Whinery, engineers of high stand- 
ing and practical acquaintance with the subject, is undoubtedly 
the most comprehensive yet published. 

The report made by these gentlemen deals with the quantities 
and proportions of waste in the five boroughs of Greater New 
York for a period of three years. 

TABLE V. QUANTITIES BY WEIGHT, NEW YORK CITY. 





TOTAL REFUSE 


1904 


!95 


1906 


Manhattan : 
The Bronx: 
Brooklyn: 
Queens: 
Richmond : 


Weight in tons 
Weight in tons 
Weight in tons 
Weight in tons 


1,933,982 

165,529 
629,144 


2,021,500 
181,861 
648,169 
83,823 
60,656 


2,146,453 
185,297 
645,925 
115,964 

65,543 


Weight in tons 






New York Citv. . 




2 .OO6.OOO 


3.1 SO.I82 



TABLE VI. AVERAGE WEIGHTS OF REFUSE, NEW YORK CITY. 



KINDS OF REFUSE 


*Man- 
hattan 
and The 
Bronx 


* Brook- 
lyn 


Queens 


*Rich- 
mond 


Average weight per cart load in Ibs. : 
Garbage 
Ashes 


2,037 

2 172 


t2,0 37 

i ,o t;o 





i,398 
i 800 


Rubbish 


I O ^O 


i 126 




3 OO 


Street sweepings 


2 O32 


i ^8 




^UJ 

2 7OO 












Average cubic yards per cart load : 
Garbage 


i 8q 


ti 85 




I <%O 


Ashes 


2 OO 






I ?O 


Rubbish 


7-3 i 


7-2 I 




j. . $<j 
I ^O 


Street sweepings . . 


2 OO 


2 OO 




I 'CO 












Average weight per cu. yd., Ibs. : 
Garbage 


1,1 IO 


"j"I,IOO 




032 


Ashes . . 


I 086 


07 ^ 




I 2OO 


Rubbish 


143 


I 54 




2OO 


Street sweepings 


i o 1 6 


760 




I 8OO 












Average weight per cu. yd., tons: 
Garbage 
Ashes 


o-55o 

O ^4.3 


to- 55 
o 488 




o .466 


Rubbish 


O O7 2 


O O7 7 






Street sweepings 


o . 508 


0.385 




o . 900 



*From measurements. 

|No figures given; taken the same as Manhattan and The Bronx. 



22 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 



TABLE VII. WEIGHT OF REFUSE PER CAPITA IN POUNDS, BY 
BOROUGHS, NEW YORK CITY. 





Garbage 


Ashes 


'Rubbish 


Street 
Sweep- 
ings 


Total 
Ref- 
use 


Manhattan . . 


217 


i 327 


108 


7 -5 O 


i 082 


The Bronx 
Brooklyn 


119 
14 c 


708 
406 


5i 
88 


I 7 6 

168 


1,054 
807 


Queens 


I 02 


C44 


61 


2 A. Z 


I O4.2 


Richmond 


2 ;6 


<;6i 


40 


804 


i 661 














New York City 


184 


940 


93 


267 


1,484 



TABLE VIII. PER CAPITA AVERAGES OF YEARS 1904, 1905 AND 190, 
NEW YORK CITY. 





Garbage 


Ashes 


Rubbish 


Street 
Sweep- 
ings 


Total 
Ref- 
use 




181 


076 


O3 


260 


I.J.7O 



To carry these reports still further and determine the composi- 
tion of the several parts of the waste, and the seasonal variations, 
the tables made by Mr. J. T. Fetherston, of the West New 
Brighton District, Borough of Richmond, are added : 

TABLE IX. COMPOSITION OF HOUSEHOLD REFUSE BY WEIGHT, 
DISTRICT OF WEST NEW BRIGHTON. 





FROM MECHANICAL ANALYSIS 




1 








o 

4-> 

0) 


E 

o> 

rj 


GARBAGE 




MONTH 


z 










G 








a 
u 








*c3 


O 














Ashes and 
Percentage 


Garbage 
Percentage 


Fine ash 
Percentage 


Clinker 
Percentage 


Glass, Met 
Percentage 


Coal and 
Percentage 


Vegetable 
Percentage 


Animal 
Percentage 


Free Water 
Percentage 


Rubbish 
Percentage 


1906 






















January 


83-5 


16.5 


40.5 


i .4 


3- 1 


34-7 


14-3 


0.6 


0.7 


4-7 


February. . 


87.6 


12 .4 


40-3 


i-3 


3-4 


38-3 


10 .9 


0.4 


o-3 


5-i 


March 


86.0 


Id. O 


42 6 


I . 2 


2 I 


2 C . C 


12.2 


o . 5 


0.6 


4 3 


April 


79-3 
78.7 


Ai T * w 

20-7 
21.3 


i^t, . w 

40.8 
37-7 


I .O 

0.6 


O 

3- 2 

5-7 


O J J 

31-5 
31.8 


17.9 
l8. 7 


0.8 
0.7 


0.8 
0.7 


t o 

4.0 
4.1 


May 


June 


71.9 


28.1 


So . 7 


ii . i 


8-4 


16.2 


24 .4 


I .0 


i .4 


6.8 


July 


58.3 


41.7 


'3.8 


0.8 


9.0 


12.6 


36.3 


1.6 


i-7 


14.2 


August 


54-3 


45-7 


20 .O 


o-5 


10 .9 


9.0 


39-7 


1-7 


2 .0 


16.2 


September.. 


So 5 


49.1 


21.7 


0.6 


8-5 


7-7 


42.5 


1.9 


2 .2 


14.9 


1905 






















October . . . 


60. i 


39-9 


29 .O 


3-5 


6.6 


iS-2 


3-9 


3- 1 


i-5 


IO .2 


November . 


71 .4 


28.6 


31.8 


0.7 


5-2 


30.8 


22.6 


1.8 


I .0 


6.1 


December . 


76.6 


23-4 


34-4 


0.9 


3- 1 


34-6 


19.6 


i .1 


0.8 


5-5 


Averages . 


73 -3 


26.7 


34-7 


1.8 


4.8 


26.7 


22.6 


I .2 


i . i 


7- 1 



THE MUNICIPAL WASTE OF AMERICAN TOWNS. 



OK O 0\ 00 



suox 



z\ 
jo a3Biuaoja<i 



spjBA ojqno 



lO ON * W "1 N r^vo TJ- *5O -<r 

M ON M w O t- 1^-00 OS O M 



06 >. \o t-oo 0000 



1 1^ W O HI N ON "frvO O 000 



8 M " 



jo 



. o> 

M 
. *> 



F^OX 



jo aSB^uaoaaj 



00. 



II 



O O 00 t> C\ M I^vO f 1 * W T 

6dwo*6od444 ^*oo 



jo 



suox 



HI N ro O ^f\O 1^ O\ 
\O*^t^t^OtONMN 
ONOO O ONOO ^ ^ V 



M i m <*5 rf t^ ovoo fO M O r- 

' tij/ioovd ro osoo 10 \d N \d 

0000 r t^^O \O \O ^O t- *- 



jo 




24 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 



The following table of quantities of garbage only, collected in 
the city of Syracuse (population 115,000) for four years, is in- 
tended to give a basis for comparison from a city where this waste 
has been accurately recorded for disposal by reduction process : 

TABLE XI. GARBAGE COLLECTION, SYRACUSE, N. Y., FOR FOUR 

YEARS, 1904-1907. 



MONTH 




To 


NS 






1904 


1905 


1906 


1907 


January 
February 
March 
April 


S3 1 -40 
508.05 
582.70 
560 . 79 


690 .40 

559-23 
622 .62 
619 . 55 


6 94-73 
636 .96 
730.16 

675 . 57 


938.70 

636-55 
686.25 

770 . 32 


May 


546 02 


736.20 


728 03 


860 o^ 


June 


710 .44 


811 .7s 


704 . 80 


832 . <;<? 


July . 


664.83 


733 .45 


781 . 15 


970 . 80 


August 


865.66 


921 .85 


1,002 . 65 


I 023 . 50 


September 


i 090 62 


I 112 OO 


aSs 66 


I 080 12 


October 


748 36 


886 65 


i 088 07 


I OQ4 Q3 


November 


736 oo 


861 1 5 


i o <c8 73 


031 . 8 1; 


December . . 


m. IO 


701 . <? 5 


896 . 30 


798 . 60 












Totals 


8,279 - 


9,257 .00 


9,985 oo 


10,634 . oo 


Average per week 


T SO . 2 


178.0 


192 . o 


204 . 5 


" day 
Maximum per month. . . . 


26.5 
41 .9 


29.7 
42 .8 


32.0 
40.3 


34-o 
40-5 



COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE, BOSTON. 

In August, 1907, Mayor John F. Fitzgerald, of Boston, Mass., 
appointed a commission to report upon the current conditions of 
the waste collection and disposal service of the city, and to 
formulate recommendations for future action. The commission 
comprised . Prof. Sedgwick, of the Massachusetts Institute of 
Technology; Mr. X. H. Goodnough, chief engineer of the State 
Board of Health, and Mr. W. Jackson, city engineer. The pre- 
liminary report upon the quantities and proportions and disposal 
means 'for the several city districts is contained in a paper entitled 
"The Collection and Disposal of Municipal Refuse/' presented 
by Mr. Goodnough before the Sanitary Section of the Boston 
Society of Civil Engineers, January i, 1908 (Journal of the 
Association; of Engineering Societies, May. 1908, Vol. XL., No. 
5). 



THE MUNICIPAL WASTE OF AMERICAN TOWNS. 25 

This excellent report comes at an opportune moment, and is 
herewith condensed for purposes of examination and comparison. 

The collection and disposal of municipal waste in Boston is 
carried on by a separate bureau called the Sanitary Department, 
which is unler the control of the Commissioner of Streets. 

The city is divided into ten districts, the boundaries of which 
follow in part the natural topographic divisions and in part the 
original boundaries of former municipalities which have been 
annexed to the city at various times. These districts and the 
population of each are as follows : 



District No. i 
District No. 2 
District No. 3 
District No. 4 
District No. 5 
District No. 6 
District No. 7 
District No. 8 
District No. 9 


South Boston 
East Boston 
Charlestown 
Brighton 
West Roxbury 
Dorchester 
Roxbury 
South End 
Back Bay 


Population 
71,000 
....... 5!,ooo 
40,000 
22,000 

37.00 
89,000 
109,000 

\ 103,000 


District No. 10 


North and West Ends 


73,000 








Total 




CQ c ooo 


Pooulation. 


census of IOCK. . 





595,380 

CLASSIFICATION OF MUNICIPAL WASTE IN THE CITY OF BOSTON. 

In the city of Boston the principal municipal wastes requiring 
disposal fall into six general classes : 

1. Ashes, including house and store dirt. 

2. House offal. 

3. Combustible waste and rubbish. 

4. Market refuse. 

5. Street cleanings. 

6. Cesspool and catch basin cleanings. 

With the exception of No. 3, the above divisions apply to all 
parts of the city. The third item, combustible waste and refuse, 
is known as the third separation and represents an attempt to 
keep separate from the other wastes materials which if dumped 
into the harbor are likely to float ashore. It applies to that por- 
tion of the city lying north of Massachusetts Avenue, but does 
not include Charlestown and East Boston. 

COLLECTION OF WASTES. 

House Dirt and Ashes. At the present time 213 single and 20 
double carts are used for collecting house dirt and ashes in all 



26 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

parts of the city. All of the carts are of wood, are fitted with 
canvas covers and so constructed that their contents can be readily 
dumped. This class of material is collected by the employees of 
the Sanitary Department except in the districts of Dorchester 
and West Roxbury. In Dorchester all this work is done by con- 
tractors, while in West Roxbury less than one-third of the total 
quantity of ashes is collected by contractors. 

House Offal. About 138 carts are used for collecting house 
offal throughout the city. Fifty-seven are iron 40 of which 
have a capacity of about 50 cubic feet each, while 17 have a ca- 
pacity of about 80 cubic feet each. Of the 81 wooden carts in use, 
7 are large carts, having a capacity of about 80 cubic feet and 
the remainder are small ones, having a capacity of 40 cubic feet. 
All of the carts, with the exception of those last mentioned 
the small wooden ones are covered with wooden or canvas covers 
so arranged that the carts can be readily dumped. The small 
wooden carts are emptied by shoveling out the offal. 

Waste and Rubbish. The collection of this class of refuse is 
done entirely by employees of the Sanitary Department, most of 
the material collected being delivered at an incinerator plant on 
Hecht Wharf near Atlantic Avenue. There are 56 carts used in 
this work. Thirty-four of these have a capacity of 109 cubic feet 
each, while the remainder will hold double this amount. All the 
carts are of wood and are fitted with canvas covers. They are 
not so arranged that they can be dumped. The material has to 
be removed by hand through doors in the rear of the carts. 

Street Cleanings. Street cleanings are collected by the Street 
Department, which uses 104 carts in this work. They have a 
capacity of about 50 cubic feet each, are made of wood and are 
not covered. Sixty-eight of the carts are owned by the city and 
the remainder are hired. Part of the work, that in Brighton and 
West Roxbury, is in charge of the Street Paving Department. ' 

Cesspool and Catch-basin Cleanings. Cesspool and catch-basin 
cleanings are collected by the Sewer Department, and during the 
year 1906 42 carts, 22 single and 20 double were in use at one 
time or another on this work. Of the single teams, 16 belong 
to the city and 6 were hired from contractors, while of the 
double teams, i is owned by the city and 19 by contractors. The 



THE MUNICIPAL WASTE OF AMERICAN TOWNS. 27 

double wagons are all of wood, and are fitted with wooden covers, 
but part of the single wagons owned by the city are in the form 
of a half-cylinder fitted with covers so arranged that the material 
can be easily dumped. The half-cylinder carts have a capacity of 
about 30 cubic feet, while the larger wooden carts hold 35 cubic 
feet. 

FREQUENCY OF COLLECTION. 

House dirt and ashes are collected either once or twice a week; 
during the winter time and only once a week in summer. Paper 
and rubbish are collected chiefly on Mondays and Thursdays, in 
the portion of the city north of Dover Street, and on Wednesdays 
and Saturdays in the remaining districts. In the districts of the 
city where there is no third separation, such material is mixed 
with the ashes. 

House offal is removed from the dwelling houses, as a rule, 
once a week in the winter and twice a week in the summer, ex- 
cept in the Back Bay, where it is removed twice a week through- 
out the entire year, while in the business portion of the city 
Districts 8, 9 and 10 the large hotels and restaurants are visited 
daily. 

The following tables indicate that the quantity of ashes and 
house dirt per capita collected daily throughout the city was 
greatest in the North and West Ends and in the South End and 
Back Bay, the districts which include the business portions of the 
city and the larger hotels. Next to these districts, the quantity 
was greatest in the suburban residential districts of Brighton and 
West Roxbury. Practically all of the combustible waste and 
rubbish is collected in the downtown districts. 

The quantity of garbage is greatest per person in the South 
End and Back Bay, Districts 8 and 9, and next largest in the 
North and West Ends, District 10, the districts of the great 
hotels. It will be noted that the quantity of garbage collected in 
East Boston is much greater per capita than that collected in 
South Boston or Charlestown. The explanation offered is that 
East Boston, being a very large shipping point, contains a large 
floating population in proportion to the population of the district, 
including sailors and employees of vessels, not recorded in the 
census. 



28 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 



OQ 

dl 

<0^ 

zS 



50? 

pi 

^oj: 

WlU< 

SE^ 



*? 

K 

zo 

Or- 

si 

m< 



x u 

111 

J 

00 





II 


M^S* 5 


S33S S 

*- <N V 


t 

|fc58 J 




r 


a , oo <*> , 

O^JOCN CO 


|~ 


$ 


&>> 


10 OCN 00 


SSSM'g 


JS2SIS 


O^MSIO' 


SSSS s 


g^^^l^ 


^^5^12 




II 


3 [2 


>o" M" oe 


\O M" 00 


," M a 


oo" M a 


a M ~- 


"- ! 




rtV 


oc a 5? c 


VO 00 00 00 1C 
rfOCNO \V 


S 8 


, <N O CN **. 


00 -OO O , 


2 = 1 S 


(N OO , *-_ | 


H 

w 
u 

PH 


4 


^^2 |S 






IOMM t^ 


WMM JOC 


,MM a 


| 


CJ 

5 


S 3 


8S2 S? 


0,00 , 


838SS 


agggg 




OCNO O CN 

IO CN to vO OO 


||S5I 




|l 


^2 


SIoS 1 a 

CN 


CN *" O 


1* 5 


S* 3 


%**> C? 


,W | 






x . 


< 


September 


October 


November 


December 


' ; 











,,000 a 


aSSS la 






3 




|I 


a.^S S 


CN 


M 


00 CN M 


M 


JM 


ll!| l 


o 




















3 


SS^M 


M^^M a 


O^M ^ 


33:2 




a^o la 






| 


: 


M M 


M M 


M M 


~ 


*~~~\ 


1 






















$!b 




-55- 00 


fV l'-. ^ 


S^MM 


3ao a 


aoooo U 




S 


& 


: 


52M-IS 


SMM"|S 






M^ |, 




CJ 


&* 


O f>O O tr. 


OOPOO 00 
vOroOO * 


O*OOO >C 


SS2SI2 


828S S 


8^8l^ 






II 


M'tNtCvd 




5 SS " S 


5 SS<0 2 


SO.O,, 


gSS^|| 


|: : : 

OCN o O 


















M MM 






: : : . 


: : : : 










k v 








: : : : 


: ; : : : 








k 1 






Ashes 
Rubbish 
Garbage 
Market refuse . . 

Total... 


Ashes 
Rubbish 
Garbage 
Market refuse . . 

Total... 


Ashes 
Rubbish 
Garbage 
Market refuse . . 

, Total . 


Ashes 
Rubbish 
Garbage 
Market refuse . . 

Total.... 


ur 


Ashes ........ 
Rubbish 
Garbage 
Market refuse . . 

Total . . . 


o 






i > 


1 

1 


| 


I 


i 


, 





THE MUNICIPAL WASTE OF AMERICAN TOWNS 






, 
























H 


CO 

z 




&i 


CM 10 

00 ^ 


8 


OCMO g 


OCMOCM' 


8 


^ tMlO 


8 


CM CM r> o 

000 


S CMCJ- g 


8j2|i 


fi 






tn 


<5 > 






















II 


Q 

z 




ft |o 


=.-'- 




O oo O O 


0-00- 


S 


.0-000 





o ooo o 


0-000 




II 

8 






.no a 






















1 


uX 




It 


-^SS 


oo 
~ 


o-sss 




oo 


5^5 


g 


SSSS ?! 


S^S S 


S!?5^ 2 


1 


-JIU 






















- - 


00 - 


s 




SE 


s 


l| 


00 O Ol^ 


. 



10 o oo O 

o-S"" 8 


J^OCM 




8 


0^.^-0 
00 T<10 

o 


i 


ZZZ- 8 


00 10 10 CM O 
* CM O 

^ o 


CM CM ro O 


3 
o 


i=o 


K 


Si 


O 00 O O 


00 

s 


85:S : 


8S8S 


c^ 


o o o o 


2 


SS82 5 


SSSSIS 


00 O O * 




<|| 


6 


|l 


gSK" 




O 10 S 
CM eJ 


OC O tC 
CM 


oc 


10 C*J O* O 


5 


^"O'CMO t*5* 
CM O vo 


o o o ^ t*i 


5S3- K 





WEEKLY G 
G EACH MO 
ION, 1905, 59E 






1" 




j 


September 




October 




November 


December 




g 
t 


uj z | 




























|ii 




*s 


00 ^ 


8 


g-2- 8 


g-"2*^ 


8 


g M 2~ 

1 


8 


S^S- 8 


O CMIO O 

ooO 




9 


<t? 


g 


N^ 


Oio oo oo 
vO * 00 O 


- 


GO 00 O 00 


r^ oo O 


S 


-000 





S22S 3 


0010 OO CM 
CM 00 O ' fO 









oo 




3 d & 






















1 


^E? 




2?, 


S SS* 





*O fO C 1 fO *-* 


???;??* 


a 


O t O"> 


ON 


O ro Oio * 


OCMCO 




1 


5w2 




IS 




- 


- - 





- 




~ 










Q. 




!n^ 







*?-. 
















S" 


Jgo 


K 

W 


^cS 




" 


. " 












2 






ws 


P 


Is 


85SS 


3 




oooo 




SSS , 


2 


8-8S 3 


88 5 






o^ 


O 


II 


CM r^ O 

^ 


| 


\O OOio so vO 
Tf* ir> O r>- 

rf* to 


5 


10 


-00 





|88-| 


<N * 




1 


3i 


























3 


^8 










: : : 










l[[j ; 






1 


CO 
7-D 
















; ; 










d 


II. BOSTOf 
OF REF 






Ashes 
Rubbish 
Garbage. . . . 
Market refuse 


1 


jJi 

III! 

g S| 


Ashes 
Rubbish. . . . 
Garbage 
Market refuse 


H 


Ashes 
Rubbish. . . . 
Garbage. . . 
Market refuse 


1 


Ashes 
Rubbish 
Garbage 
Market refuse 

Total. 


Ashes 
Rubbish 
Garbage 
Market refuse 
Total.. 


||| " 


3 

si 


TABLE XI 






i 




b 




.c 
g 

1 




I 




% 


1 


Average 


5J days per we 



30 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

COMPARISON OF QUANTITIES OF WASTE AND REFUSE COLLECTED 
IN THE CITIES OF BOSTON AND NEW YORK. 

Before leaving the question of the quantity of wastes it will 
be of. interest to compare the quantities collected per capita in 
the city of Boston with those collected in the boroughs of Man- 
hattan and the Bronx, kindly furnished by Mr. Wm. Mac- 
donough Craven, recently Street Commissioner of the City of 
New York. These figures are for ashes, rubbish and garbage. 
They show a very remarkable similarity in the total quantity of 
such wastes collected in the two cities. 

METHODS OF DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE AND REFUSE IN 
THE CITY OF BOSTON. 

Ashes and House Dirt. Of the total amount of 466,000 tons 
of this material collected in the entire city in the year 1906, 
132,000 tons, or 28 per cent., were delivered at Fort Hill wharf, 
on Atlantic Avenue, discharged into scows and dumped at sea off 
the mouth of the harbor. All of the remainder of this waste and 
refuse is disposed of by dumping it upon low grounds in various 
parts of the city. 

Combustible Waste and Refuse. Of the total quantity of waste 
and refuse, so called, collected in the city, amounting to 3,108,000 
cubic feet in the year 1906, 2,829,000 were delivered to an in- 
cinerator plant on Hecht Wharf and the remainder deposited 
on dumps in various parts of the city, where a part of it was 
burned. 

Garbage. Of the 55,700 tons of house offal collected in the 
entire city in 1906, 41,960 were conveyed to scows at the Fort 
Hill and Albany Street Wharves 17,660 tons to the former and 
24,300 tons to the latter and towed to the garbage reduction 
plant at Spectacle Island. The remainder 13,740 tons col- 
lected in East Boston, Brighton, West Roxbury and Dorchester, 
was sold for the feeding of swine. 

During the past year the sale of offal from Dorchester for the 
feeding of swine has been discontinued, and this offal is now 
delivered at Fort Hill Wharf. Difficulty has been experienced 
on account of the disposal of offal from East Boston for the 
purpose of feeding swine, and it is likely that that method of dis- 



THE MUNICIPAL WASTE OF AMERICAN TOWNS. 



IL? 




M 

z z 

<0 

rl 



= o 

gt 



u o 

OU, 
Bf 

^ 

OS 

> o 

UJ 

_l 

1 -I 
<o o 

o 

i! 

i-z 

^d 







il 



Ul X 

eg 

Ul O 
= 

li 

fe w 
o o 

CO Z 

li 

^ 

o 
u 

J 
m 

i 








.a' 


Is 


Q 1^. l>. ^ f M 









00 MOO M t- ro "goO 1 " 1 " 1 


10 

II 


a -S 

M 


'oo > PI "^ 'pi 00 o ^ 


J**4 


1? 


~ ' - 1010O MwOvM OMO>U-> 
^ O too M- Ov O I- 


U 


5c 


r5 (> 


_c 


Is * 


'Sv 


'1 


&3 m 


N * 00 00 00 tf) 





JS*C v 


C 00 


jj 




y rt y 


rt S'lCS^ MI^* "ovoi^ 1 " 


rt 


O ^ 


OO^ M ^ M f*> MOM 


u 


CO W 


to a 


"2 




| ^r o^S, M S! ^oS5 


i 


i! 




1 




MO oo * 







00 00 


<n 




- 10 O t O Oi 


.Q 




^^M o OOO MOOv 1 "*- MOr-O 




11 


^ ^J O O t too OO too O M 

QQ f*5ON W1OM 1OIO^~ 



| 


u 


10 t- N 




bj 


*> 


1 


il 


^5 *? t>- O~ vO M' Tt 1*5 O O M 






f*5 M M 00 N 10 PI 




-3 


CO MO 


^> 




M 


CJ 




o o 


8 


5 


.Q 00 00 * ^ 00 M 

^o 7 M . o o '7 <? 7 . "? ? 


^ 


00 

c 




1 






1 






s 


J c 


^^J * 010 ro^ M fjf^lo'r? 


6 


11 


v2 ^ to N O M TfO f) OO 00 Tf M 


I 1 * 


6 


e5 o M 00 

M M 







2; M 


si 


+* o 


]? P4 1OOO PI tO M PI ^ IOO M 




rt w 

W o 

PQ 


^ ^ 4 fO N oo' too' ' Pi 00 00 M 

10 PI PI I" 


4 




M" M' 


5 






a 


. 


r*5 O 00 10 ~- 10 10 


cS 


*^ o 






o? 


^ o " . H . . 

^ OtOM OOO^O OOvOPIM 


rt 


COpQ 


*" . N N . 


w 




fO to 


0. 


IH 


: : : : : 1 : : : : : 


3 


o 


: : : : :| : : : : : 


~*~ 


i 

Q 




1 


> 

M 

< 


irl j-jj :j| j| i j| :j 


I 


s 

Z 


5|c3|| g g|l| 8 i 83 8 


1 


c2 


C3 ^ h-JOHOn^iJOHPH^.JOHPK 


o 




5c2w O H 


10 

* 



32 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 



:> 










w 


j2 




Ul 

z 


g 




o 


:"" 


o 

oo 


c. 

i 




Q 


0. 











O M O 




Z 


H 




^4) 






l/^ M V) 




** 


H! 
^ 


M- 
H 








t-i M 




Z 




3 




O ^> f^ 




II II II 







w 




c 


^ * 









h 

CO 



ffl 


0, 
cs 




1 


in 









u. 












" 




o 












w ; 












1- VO 


o 


? 




(0 


^ 




^ 







^ 




Ul 


05 




O 


M 00 O 





P, : : 










K" 1 


00 


o 






h 


< 




^ 






>, ' : 




o 


O 


H 


V 






o j J | 




Ul 


fe 


K 
O 








"SJgja^ 




I 


o 


H 








"*^~ ^ ^ tO 




h 


H 






<?s ? 


8 






z 


H 

O 




I 


t^ w O 

00 M 


8 


rt ' 






M 









M 


u 




Ul 






PQ 






g 




(0 


OH 










p 3 




D 












o 




u. 












M M M 




Ul 








T <5 t 


M 


1 




DC 






o 


^o'S. 


H 


M 




u. . 
zf 




a 

j 

U 


1 




oo" 


1 




- 




(X 












OLLECTI 
YORKf 


3 

8 


AVERAGE 


1 
PQ 


2p? 


00 







0_ 

00 


O 


o 










M . N 






01 




Vj 


o^ 




c N 
o 




POSAL 


I 




n 


1 

fe 

V 


S,t 




III 

( 




to 






S 






| 








o 








X ' 








E 








ro^ : 












O 00 O 




^ ' 




Ul 
(0 

D 




8 


| 
1 


2 M S- 




X w ' ' 




U. 






PQ 






OH;; 




Ul 
DC 












~1 ^ 




Z 












g < : : 

















H ' " 




h 












Q. ^ ' 

















| : : 




1 












*s : : 




1 












o '. ' 




X 










_; 


E : ; 


J 












-2 


o c . 


fl 














^ BJ . 




TABLE 








Ashes. . . 
Rubbish 
Garbage 




o 2 
^g 

?S-2 
SPQ 





THE MUNICIPAL WASTE OF AMERICAN TOWNS. 33 

posal will soon be discontinued and the offal from that district 
delivered to the reduction plant at Spectacle Island. 

The works for the disposal of garbage in the city of Boston 
were originally constructed on the mainland, and, though located 
more than a mile from any dwellings, yet nuisance was severe, and 
the plant was subsequently removed to Spectacle Island. Ref- 
erences to serious nuisance from this plant in its present loca- 
tion have been made in the newspapers during the past summer. 

Street Cleaning. Of the 5,850,000 cubic feet of street clean- 
ings collected in the entire city, 1,965,000 cubic feet, or 34 per 
cent., are delivered to Fort Hill Wharf and dumped at sea. The 
remainder is dumped with the ashes and other refuse for the rill- 
ing of low lands. 

Catch-Basin Cleanings. Cesspool and catch-basin cleanings 
amounted in 1906 to 837,000 cubic feet, of which 190,000 or 23 
per cent., were shipped at Fort Hill Wharf and dumped at sea, 
while the remainder was dumped with the other refuse in the low 
grounds about the city. 

Market Refuse. The market refuse, amounting to about 8,600 
tons, was dumped into scows at Fort Hill Wharf and disposed of 
at sea. A considerable quantity of market refuse is, however, dis- 
posed of on the land dumps in various parts of the city. 

DUMPING ON LAND. 

The great bulk of the refuse material disposed of from the 
city is dumped upon the low grounds, and at the'present time the 
number of such dumping places in use in the city of Boston is in 
the neighborhood of 60. 

The total number of loads of waste and refuse dumped at these 
places was counted during certain weeks in the month of June, 
1907, the results showing that at the largest of these dumps 477 
loads of material were disposed of in a single week. At the next 
largest dump 282 and 283 loads, respectively, were disposed of in 
different weeks. At ten other dumps more than 200 loads per 
week were disposed of, and at eight others between 100 and 200 
loads per week were disposed of. 

These dumps are used in many places as a playground by chil- 
dren and are a source of constant annoyance to the Health Depart- 
ment from foul odors and especially from smoke caused by fre- 



34 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

quent fires. They are usually very unsightly and at times of 
high winds many acres of ground are sometimes covered by flying 
debris, chiefly paper, from a large dump. 

OBSERVATIONS. 

This paper by Mr. Goodnough is particularly valuable because 
of its division of the city into districts with the population of each 
carefully noted and the records of relative proportions of every 
class of waste in each district. It is also, as far as is known, the 
only published report that gives reliable data in regard to the 
quantities of catch-basin cleanings from a given area. While this 
class of refuse is not usually included in the waste disposal service, 
it is still well-known as one of the troublesome items with which 
every municipality has to deal. With the figures presented, 
which include the number of teams and the labor required, it 
should be a simple matter for the officials of any town to make 
calculations of costs according to the system desired. 

Although this paper does not give details of the operation of 
the Refuse Utilization Station, it points out that the disposal of 
light refuse and rubbish by this method has relieved the city of a 
great volume of troublesome refuse which formerly caused a nui- 
sance by flotation to adjoining shores when dumped into the bay. 

The disposal of 2,829,000 cubic feet, equivalent to 104,407 cubic 
yards, or 11,067 tons, which was handled by the Refuse Disposal 
Station in 1906, shows the value of this method of treatment in 
strong contrast to the insanitary, untidy disposal at dumps. 

This paper is an acceptable contribution to the literature of 
waste disposal in the New England States. (Note: House offal 
as here used means garbage. House dirt and ashes does not mean 
garbage and ashes, but other house refuse. Rubbish means paper 
and light refuse.) 

GENERAL CONCLUSIONS. 



In bringing together the reports of the various commissions 
and expert engineers it has been the author's intention to select the 
most practical information from all the available sources. Tables 
derived from reports in other localities might be added, but as 
quantities are contingent upon local conditions and vary for many 
reasons, a general recapitulation would be of little or no service. 

With the aid of the figures given in the foregoing tables, the 



THE MUNICIPAL WASTE OF AMERICAN TOWNS. 



35 



officials of any town, after making due allowances for local con- 
ditions, may obtain a close estimate of their quantities of separated 
waste, their special seasonal variations and some idea of the com- 
position of each. This is the information needed when new 
methods for disposal are under consideration, and no uncertain 
and indefinite rough estimate of cart loads will afford a clear idea 
as to what the amounts are to be dealt with or of what special 
character they may be composed. Without a fairly close esti- 
mate, the town is at the mercy of the contractor, who proposes 
to collect or dispose of the waste by guessing at the quantities 
and these are never on the smaller side and then takes a chance 
as to the equipment he must provide, and the capacity of the in- 
cinerator he proposes for and neither are ever too large. Be- 
tween the two guesses there is frequently a wide variation from 
the facts, which makes trouble for both parties when the test 
comes for making good the contractor's guaranteed figures. 

THE COLLECTION STATISTICS OF THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT. 

The statistics published by the General Government (Depart- 
ment Commerce and Labor, Census Bureau, 1905) contain tabu- 
lated reports from 154 cities having a population of 30,000 up- 
wards. These figures are not conclusive, nor do they accurately 
represent the conditions. They are usful as giving some general 
idea of the work of collection and disposal. From the tables the 
following condensation has been made : 

TABLE XVI. STATISTICS OF COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF REFUSE 
(FROM U. S. CENSUS, 1905). 



CENSUS 


GARBAGE 


OTHER REFUSE 


DISPO- 
SITION 


According to Population 


Not Reported 


Collected 


Burned 


Reduced 


Otherwise Dis- 
posed of 


Animals 


1 
1 


I 

4 
4 

7 

21 


Night Soil 


Other Refuse 


Disposed of by 
Householders 


1 
1 
1 


Group i 15 cities, with 
300,000 or over 
Group 2 25 cities, with 
100,000 to 300,000 
Group 3 47 cities, 50,000 
to 100 ooo. . . 


2 

3 

12 
21 


13 

20 

3 
43 
1 06 


4 ' 
6 
13 
ii 


7 
5 
6 

2 


5 
ii 
ii 
28 


9 
19 
8 

27 


10 

9 
16 
18 
53 


3 
i 
5 
9 
1.8 


4 
5 
4 

5 


2 

1 1 
i 

21 


2 

3 
5 

27 


Group 4 67 cities, 30,000 
to 50 ooo 


154 cities 


38 


34 


2O 


55 


63 


:i8_ 


35 



36 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

As compared with the government reports of 1900 on this sub- 
ject there is a great improvement in conditions, as at that time 
53 places failed to make any reports whatever, and the returns 
actually made were much less complete than those cited above. 

SEPARATE GARBAGE COLLECTIONS. 

'There are several reasons for a separate garbage collection. 
The amount is approximately only ten to twelve per cent, of the 
whole bulk of waste, it is the most objectionable class, and it 
must be removed more frequently than any other. When in a 
cleanly condition it may be utilized in the reduction process or fed 
to swine. In most places the regulations for separation impose 
fines, or the refusal to remove the garbage when it is mixed with 
foreign matters. 

In Southern towns it is the custom to collect garbage and 
rubbish together. Sometimes ashes and manure are included, and 
occasionally dead animals, and when thus mixed the only practi- 
cable disposal is by cremation, or by burying in the ground. 

In only a few of the larger cities is the separation of ashes 
from garbage and rubbish completely accomplished. New York, 
Brooklyn, Boston, Washington and Buffalo have means for the 
recovery of the salable parts of the rubbish, and other large 
cities are considering the installation of rubbish stations. In the 
remaining towns and cities the ash collection includes the rubbish ; 
the whole is discharged together, a small part of the refuse being 
recovered by dump picking. 

Where there is a separate collection the burden of it comes 
upon the householder, as he is required to have three cans or 
vessels and to keep them in accessible places ; he is also held re- 
sponsible for their cleanly and serviceable condition. The room 
used for their storage and the care exercised in filling them are 
a considerable tax upon the patience and convenience of the house 
occupants. 

THE COMPOSITION OF GARBAGE. 

In dealing with separated garbage, its character and composi- 
tion must be taken into account. Several analyses have been 
made, but there is need of a more extended and accurate quan- 
titive anaylsis than any we now have. 



THE MUNICIPAL WASTE OF AMERICAN TOWNS. 



37 



TABLE XVII. AVERAGE PERCENTAGE COMPOSITION OF GARBAGE. 





Waring; 
New York 
1896 


Craven; 
New York 
City, 
1899 


Fethers- 
ton; 
Atlantic 
City, 1901 


Hering; 
Trenton, 
1903 


Moisture 
Solids, animal and 
vegetable 


Per 
Cent. Weight 
71 = 1,420 Ibs. 

20 = 400 


Per 
Cent. 

70 

25 1 


Per 
Cent. 
82 

Q 1 


Per 
Cent. 
80 


Grease recoverable. . 
Non-combustible. . . . 


2 = 40 

7 = 140 ' 


1} 


18 } 


16 
4 




ioo = 2,000 Ibs 


IOO 


TOO 


IOO 



Waring's report in 1896 was upon the average of 3,000 tons 
of summer garbage from different cities, treated by different 
methods of reduction. Craven's report, on one reduction plant, 
shows better methods. Fetherston's and Hering's figures were 
from cremation plants, where nothing of value was recovered. 

The paper by Mr. B. F. Welton in the discussion before the 
American Society of Civil Engineers, December 18, 1907, gives 
the following analysis of dry samples of waste, including garbage 
representing collections for the years 1905-06 in New York City : 



TABLE XVIII. CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF DRY COMPOSITE SAMPLES. 



CONSTITUENTS 


Coal 
and 
Cinders 


Garbage 


Rubbish 


Percentage by weight of 
Carbon . . 


r cr 77 


A.T. IO 


4.2 3 


Hydrogen 


0.71; 


6 24 


4 JV 
e 06 


Nitrogen 
Oxygen 


o .64 

2.37 


3-70 

27 . 74 


3-41 

33 . <2 


Silica 


^O .OI 


7. <;6 


6 .40 


Iron oxide and alumina 


8 08 


O A. I 


2 O3 


Lime 


I 21 


426 


2 26 


Magnesia 
Phosphoric acid 


Trace 
None 


0.28 

I .47 


o-57 

O . IO 


Carbonic acid 


None 


O ^Q 


I 4.O 


Lead 


Trace 


f Sulphides 1 


O 52 


Tin 


Trace 


o 20 1 


_y j* 
Trace 


Alkalies and undetermined 


0.27 


4-45 


I .21 




IOO .00 


IOO .00 


IOO . OO 



38 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

In an analysis of Milwaukee's garbage made by Prof. R. E. W. 
Sommer, he found in dry garbage 8.77 per cent, of grease, 1.61 
per cent, of nitrogen, 12.50 per cent, of glucose, and 2.31 per cent, 
of phosphoric acid. Total combustion gave 61.88 per cent, of 
ashes and 38.12 per cent, of combustible matter. Wet garbage 
contained 78 per cent, of water. It was found that if placed to a 
height of 8 inches in a barrel, 0.67 per cent, of water drained off ; 
at a height of 16 inches, 7.05 per cent, drained off; and at a height 
of 24 inches, 9.33 per cent, drained off. 

THE WEIGHT OF GARBAGE. 

There is no absolute standard of weight for garbage that can 
be applied to all conditions. Heretofore it has been the practice 
to estimate the average weight for one cubic yard from 1,500 to 
1,700 pounds. This includes the liquids which may be thus 
divided. 

(1) The contained moisture in the organic composition of all vege- 
table substances, varying according to the nature of the vegetable. The 
summer garbage of American towns during the melon and fruit season 
carries a much larger quantity of liquid elements than the same amount 
of garbage does in the winter, when it is composed of the drier and more 
compact vegetable refuse. 

(2) The free water, or liquids held in suspension in the interstices of 
the garbage by capillary attraction, coming from household cooking and 
washing, or from snow and rain falling into the uncovered garbage cans 
or carts. . When this free water is allowed to drain off, the integral char- 
acter of the garbage is unchanged, but the weight is reduced. 

The latest examinations, as previously quoted, would indicate 
that the volume of contained water in average city garbage has 
been placed at too high a figure. It seems probable that the 
average weights of the liquid elements of garbage should be 
given as 70 per cent., 72^ per cent., or 1,400 to 1,450 pounds per 
ton. 

The probabilities are that there is an average of 1,450 pounds to 
the cubic yard, 54 pounds per cubic foot, and 38 cubic feet to the 
ton, and this may be taken as representing the average collection 
of Northern towns where the garbage contains a normal pre- 
centage of moisture. 

If the free water (estimated at twelve and one-half per cent, by 
weight) be omitted, then the figures would be 1,270 pounds per 
cubic yard, 47 pounds per cubic foot, and 42^2 cubic feet per ton. 



THE MUNICIPAL WASTE OF AMERICAN TOWNS. 39 

THE FERTILIZING ELEMENTS OF RAW GARBAGE. 

There is some value in garbage as a fertilizer for poor soils, but 
the proportion of plant food is less than is popularly estimated. 
The fertilizing values are approximately, phosphoric acid, 0.65 
per cent.; ammonia, 0.65 per cent.; potash, 0.15 per cent. These 
small proportions of plant food are present in the green garbage, 
and when the application of this to the soil is made by the crude 
method of plowing under it is attended with difficulties that 
are hard to overcome. It is strongly advocated by many, who 
argue that there must be a return to the ground of organic matter 
taken therefrom, to prevent a possible food famine in some far 
distant future, but it does not appear that efforts in this direc- 
tion are successful. Many American towns have tried this 
method, and nearly all have abandoned it because of the nuisance 
produced, or for financial reasons. Large areas of suitable lands 
are seldom found in the vicinity of large towns ; the presence of 
foreign substances in the garbage is embarrassing and detrimental, 
and the soil so treated must have time to oxydize and assimilate 
the garbage before another dose. 

When garbage passes through the various stages of grease ex- 
traction by steam or naphtha, pressing and grinding, drying 
commonly known as the reduction or extraction process, the fats 
are separated and the solid portions, called "tankage," then con- 
tain the fertilizing elements in a concentrated form. This method 
of treatment will be considered later. 

AGRICULTURAL UTILIZATION. 

This method is used in all parts of Europe except Great Britain, 
and the reports made in Paris by the chief engineer in charge of 
this work are instructive : 

In Paris house refuse is known as garbage (gadoues), and is com- 
posed of all kitchen refuse and any remnants produced by the sweeping 
of the inside of public properties or private buildings, not mixed with 
industrial waste, earth, gravel or rubbish. It is contained in pails having 
a maximum capacity of thirty gallons. The broken crockery, glass, etc., 
are deposited in separate receptacles. The garbage is collected by the 
city laborers, and removed by contractors in carts of six cubic metres 
(7.85 cubic yds.), and sent directly to the fields by wagon, rail and water, 
where it is delivered to the farmers. The quantity is six hundred thou- 
sand tons yearly. But the contractors have raised their bids, because 
the fields on which it is possible to utilize the garbage are growing fewer 
near Paris, and the suburban towns are refusing to allow it to be de- 
posited on their grounds ; and the farmers are able to buy chemical f er- 



4O THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

tilizers at cheap rates, and will pay only a low price for the garbage- 
fertilizer, which requires careful sorting. Without such sorting their 
fields are strewn with tin cans, broken crockery and glass, etc., which are 
dangerous to their horses' hoofs. 

To bring it into a better condition for use by the farmers, the 
garbage is sometimes ground into a homogenous mass, at grind- 
ing stations located as near as possible to the centers of collection. 

This process, as reported by M. Tur,* has some interesting and 
novel features : 

The ground garbage looks like vegetable earth, mixed with bits of 
paper and straw. Its odor is hardly perceptible, can be endured for a 
long time, and may be removed by sprinkling with lime water. 

The ground garbage can be used in the fields without giving the same 
trouble as the original garbage, all debris troublesome or dangerous to 
the farmers having been removed. 

Hygienic considerations do not seem to enter into the question of the 
adoption of one or the other method (utilization or incineration) pro- 
vided the agricultural utilization does not bring the garbage storehouses 
near the inhabited centers. 



This method seems to have been invented to overcome the 
reluctance of the farmers to receive the garbage in its rough 
state, as "they will not take the least trouble to procure this 
fertilizer." 

Experiments in incineration showed that the garbage was self- 
burning, i. e., that it would burn without any addition of coal, 
and it was" recommended that there be installed a destructor of 
the English type as near as possible to the center of the borough 
which it serves, to reduce to a minimum the charge for hauling. 

The disposal of refuse in Paris is complicated by the existence 
of rag-pickers, numbering upwards of 25,000, who from long-con- 
tinued custom have a vested right to first sort over the refuse. 
They are authorized by the janitors of houses to make the first 
collection from the pails before emptying, a second picking is 
being made while the carts are being filled, and the third in the 
stations at the trans-shipment of the garbage. 

This method of grinding up the refuse to obtain a class of 
fertilizer more acceptable and better suited to the farmers' uses 
has been tried in three of the districts of Paris. The disposal by 
incineration in three other districts is now being done at three 



'Proceedings Amer. Soc. Civil Engineers, 1904 International Engineering Congress. 



THE MUNICIPAL WASTE OF AMERICAN TOWNS. 41 

destructor plants built by Meldrun Brothers, of Manchester, 
England, the united capacity of these being 700 tons per day. 

These experiments in the city of Paris by opposing methods of 
utilization by preparing the waste for ground fertilizer, and its 
total destruction by fire, developing steam power for various 
purposes, will be watched with great interest by other cities of 
Europe where agricultural utilization has been employed for 
centuries. Another large city of France, St. Etienne, has adopted 
the destructor system of the Meldrum Company, and still others 
are investigating the subject. 

DRY REFUSE OR RUBBISH COLLECTIONS. 

The term "refuse," often used to designate the collective mass 
of municipal wastage, is also applied to any one particular item 
or part of the same mass. The author has preferred to follow 
the definition previously given, and to apply the word to the dry 
refuse and rubbish, as distinguished from other parts of city 
waste. Properly speaking, it should be used to designate only 
the very last stage, or the ultimate form of any kind of worthless 
matter, but this is a technical definition, and it is believed that it 
will be clearer and less confusing to employ it as defining that 
part of the genuine wastage known as dry refuse and not to use 
the word in connection with every form of waste as is generally 
done. 

The separate treatment of refuse for the recovery of its salable 
parts has shown the need of a subdivision of the term "refuse." 
When the final disposition is by fire the refuse must be com- 
bustible in character, and after sorting out the valuable parts the 
remainder can be easily burned, leaving a small amount of ash 
that gives no trouble to dispose of. But the non-combustible part 
is more difficult to deal with, as it contains for recovery only 
metals and bottles that can be sold as junk, leaving the greater 
part absolutely worthless for any purpose. This is "rubbish," 
the last form of refuse, and the final residue of the whole collected 
mass of city waste. 

This component (refuse) of city wastage represents many dif- 
ferent things in -different places. In the eastern part of the 
country it is called dry refuse or rubbish, and includes all the 
inorganic rejected substance from the house, except ashes. It 



42 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

also frequently comprises out-of-door waste, such as cut grass, 
the sweepings of lawns and walks, leaves, the branches of 
trees, etc. In the west it is also termed refuse and rubbish, and 
is called collectively "garbage." In the south it is "trash," and 
while generally including nearly every kind of waste except garb- 
age, frequently contains this also. 

There is no clear distinction possible except in cities where 
a separate collection service has been established ; it then becomes 
necessary to define it accurately. 

Regulations and ordinances have been adopted in practically 
all the municipalities of any size throughout the country, and 
these differ widely in various places. The question is receiving 
serious consideration by the authorities everywhere, and in time 
there will undoubtedly be more uniformity in the laws relating 
to the subject. 

The Sanitary Code of New York City, probably the first to 
use definite terms, and which has guided most other places in 
this matter, defines the separation of wastes as follows : 

CARD OF INSTRUCTION FOR HOUSEHOLDERS. 

Put into Garbage Put into Ash Put into Rubbish 

Receptacles Receptacles Bundles^ 

Kitchen or Ashes, Sawdust, Bottles, Paper, 

Table Waste, Floor and Pasteboard, etc. 

Vegetables, Street Sweepings, Rags, Mattresses, 

Meats, Broken Glass, Old Clothes, Old Shoes, 

Fish, Broken Crockery, Leather and Leather Scrap, 

Bones, * Oyster and Clam Carpets, Tobacco Stems, 

Fat. Shells, Straw and Excelsior 

Tin Cans. (from households only) . 

*NOTE. Where there is a quantity of shells, as at a restaurant, they must be 
hauled to the dump by the owner. x 

tAll rubbish such as described in this third column must be securely bundled and 
tied, or it will not be removed. 

REVERSE OF CARD. 

It is forbidden by city ordinance to throw any discarded scrap or 
article into the street, or paper, newspapers, etc., ashes, dirt, garbage, 
banana skins, orange peel, and the like. The Sanitary Code requires 
householders and occupants to provide separate receptacles for ashes and 
garbage, and forbids mixing these in the same receptacle. This law will 
be strictly enforced. 

Boston follows the same code and regulations, but requires 
that bottles and cans that have held food shall be put with the 



THE MUNICIPAL WASTE OF AMERICAN TOWNS. 



43 



garbage, and all others with the ashes. Other large cities follow 
the same regulations, with local changes. 

The item of tin cans gives trouble everywhere; no one wants 
them, as, except in large numbers, their value is nothing. When 
in bulk the solder and tin can be recovered by heating, and the 
iron will bring something for rough purposes. Tin cans properly 
belong with ashes, as any impurity is speedily deodorized by the 
fine ash. 

There is a collection of refuse in some of the larger eastern 
towns, though little attention is paid to its disposal. About 
twenty New England towns have weekly or bi-weekly service, 
and some fifteen other places, west and south, collect refuse once 
a week. 

THE PROPORTIONS OF REFUSE AND RUBBISH. 

So few reports of the actual percentages of refuse are available 
that it is difficult to give any data except that obtainable from 
estimate and observation. The subjoined table, compiled by the 
writer some years ago, is believed to be fairly representative : 



TABLE 



XIX. APPROXIMATE PERCENTAGE OF DRY 
WHOLE MUNICIPAL WASTE. 



REFUSE IN 





Per Cent, 
by 

Weight 


Per Cent. 

by 

Volume 


Wt. per 
Cubic 
Yard 




New York 


7 to 10 


20 to 2 $ 


140 Ibs. 


Ready for sorting 


Brooklyn 


8 to 12 


20 to 25 


ICC " 




Boston 


4 to 6 


15 to 20 


202 ' 


Gross weight 


Buffalo 


8 to 10 


2 c to 3 =; 


2 I C. " 




Philadelphia 


6 to 8 


15 tO 20 


J 75 ' 


Estimated 



The lighter weights in New York or Brooklyn represent the 
amount collected by the city teams, but in reality the amounts 
produced are far greater. The best part of the dry refuse of 
New York City never comes to the city's carts. All large business 
houses sell their waste privately, or give it away on condition that 
their steam boiler ashes are removed free of cost. The janitors 
of apartment houses and the superintendents of office buildings 
control the waste paper for their own benefit. The city collects 
from private houses of the better class, and from the tenement 



44 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

districts and smaller shops, and all this is often picked over by 
junk dealers before the arrival of the city teams. Preliminary 
sorting for private sale is done in every large town to a greater 
or lesser extent ; it is more noticeable in New York because of 
the relatively larger quantities. 

The Boston collection is greater in weight and quantity, but 
of less value for market. The Buffalo refuse has a larger per- 
centage of dust, dirt, iron and wood. That of Brooklyn is of 
the best average quality, as the paper and rubbish from the resi- 
dential districts is cleaner and better than from the business sec- 
tions. Chicago and some other places have a system of collec- 
tion in stationary iron boxes at street corners, supposed to be 
for waste paper only, but which receive a large quantity of other 
matters. The franchise for the boxes is held by a company whose 
chief purpose is to use them for advertising purposes. The 
usefulness of this box service is very doubtful, considering the 
valuable room surrendered by the city at street intersections and 
the payment made of a small percentage upon the income received 
by the company. 

THE VOLUME OF DRY REFUSE. 

The amount of paper produced and consumed in this country 
is enormous in weight and bulk. Houses, shops, wholesale and 
department stores, office buildings, banks, factories and institu- 
tions, where the waste produced cannot be destroyed, send outside 
the building quantities of articles which have become worthless 
through use, or are not worth preservation owing to their cheap- 
ness and profusion. 

Of this amount, paper in many forms is the largest proportion. 
The consumption of paper in the United States is stated on good 
authority to be 38 pounds per capita per annum. Asuming a 
population of eighty millions, this is 1,520,000 tons per year. To 
produce this paper whole countries and territories are laid under 
contribution, thousands of acres of forest trees are turned into 
pulp; the world is explored and ransacked for old or new forms 
of manufactured and vegetable products to be worked into paper 
stock, great factories and many firms and companies, with huge 
amounts of capital, are all busy trying to satisfy the insatiable 
demand of the public for more paper. 



THE MUNICIPAL WASTE OF AMERICAN TOWNS. 45 

An instance of the use of paper in New York City may be 
cited. The combined weight of one number of each of six Sun- 
day newspapers, on March 5, 1906, was 5% pounds, an average 
of 15 1-3 ounces for each paper. The whole number of sheets, 
if spread out flat, would cover 52 square feet of surface. The 
length of these sheets, if placed end to end, the long way, would 
be 393 feet, more than one city block. It is estimated that the 
newspapers of New York City daily consume 350 tons of paper, 
and that fully two-thirds of this remains in the city aqid is not 
sent out through the mails. This is upwards of 85,000 tons to be 
accounted for yearly, to which must be added the stream of other 
matter circulars, posters, advertising and trade matter of all 
sorts, besides the great value of paper in the weekly and monthly 
journals and magazines. 

By far the largest proportion of paper manufactured, after 
serving temporary and transient purposes, is thrown aside as 
worthless. It is so cheap as to be hardly worth saving; its 
abundance makes it a nuisance, and it is the custom to get rid 
of it as soon as possible, 



CHAPTER III. 

MUNICIPAL REFUSE AND RUBBISH COLLECTION AND DISPOSITION. 

The history of the efforts made in this country to systematize 
the collection and saving of this kind of municipal waste dates 
from the beginning of the experiments made by the late Col. 
George E. Waring, when Street Cleaning Commissioner in New 
York, twelve years ago. He saw at Budapest a certain method 
of sorting the city waste by placing it in thin layers on an endless 
movable belt or platform, driven by power, and stationing on 
either side a file of women who, as it passed, picked out certain 
specific articles or substances which had a market value, or which 
could be put to some useful purpose. Not a cleanly, but a 
practical way of recovering things which would otherwise be 
wasted and lost. (jGoJ. Waring applied this idea at one of the 
New York Street Cleaning District Stations, and found that a 
large proportion of the rubbish could be saved, and that it repaid 
the effort and cost of recovery. He afterward built an experi- 
mental station to which was brought the refuse from three dis- 
tricts ; erected a movable platform for sorting, and a furnace for 
burning the residue. The station built by the city, was run by 
contract, and the city received from it a revenue based upon a 
sliding scale, according to the quantities delivered, allowance 
being made for delay and stoppages. The collection of refuse 
was made by the city, and householders were asked to keep it 
separated from the garbage and ashes. 

This experiment proved that there was a far greater value in 
city refuse than had been generally known ; that the preliminary 
separation could readily be made at the house; that a separate 
force of men and carts could be profitably employed for collec- 
tion ; that the refuse could be sorted, baled and marketed, the 
.worthless portions being destroyed without nuisance in the neigh- 
borhood of the works, and that there was revenue for the city 
in the process. Though the furnaces and machinery were not 



THE MUNICIPAL WASTE OF AMERICAN TOWNS. 



47 



adequate for the work, yet the results were reasonably good, 
considering all the circumstances. 

The returns from the Waring experimental station from Jan- 
uary i, 1898, to August n, 1900 two years, seven months and 
eleven days are shown by reports made by the Street Cleaning 
Bureau and by private observation. The amount of combustable 
refuse collected in three street cleaning districts, Numbers 12, 14 
and 1 6, respectively included in the territory bounded by Sixth 
and Seventh streets, south, the Bowery and Fifth avenue, west, 
Twenty-second-street, north, containing 116,525 persons, and 
having a fair average of houses, shops, stores, department stores 
and factories is as follows : 

TABLE XX. RETURNS FROM EAST SIXTEENTH STREET REFUSE 
DISPOSAL STATION, NEW YORK CITY. 



Year 


Loads 


Collections 


Payments to 
City by 
Contractor 


Value to City 
per Ton 


1898 
1899 
1900 


1 5,3 56 
12,946 
7,422 


6,710 
5,660 
3.30 


$4,141 
3,!9 
3,680 


61.7 cents 

54-9 
$1.10 (7 mos.) 



THE QUANTITIES AND COMPONENT PARTS OF REFUSE RECEIVED 

IN 1899. 

Paper, books, strawboard, etc 3,058,616 Ibs. 

Rags, carpets, clothing, shoes, etc 576,812 

Iron, copper, brass, lead, rubber 132,438 

Bottles, proprietary 29,000 No. 

Bottles, common 3 50 bbls. 

Nearly all this refuse came from houses and shops, the large 
department stores contributing about 1,500 loads of wrapping 
paper and strawboard. A smaller proportion of factory waste 
was received, useless except for fuel. These items may be still 
further classified. 

Of the whole annual quantity by weight thus treated, 37 per 
cent, was sorted and sold, 60 per cent, was burned, and 3 per cent, 
to 5 per cent, was incombustible and was taken away with the 
ashes, which formed about 17 per cent, of the quantity burned. 
About 75 horsepower in steam was derived from combustion, of 
which less than 25 per cent, was utilized. This station was dis- 
continued by a new city administration, and for two years all the 



48 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

TABLE XXI. PERCENTAGE OF SALABLE PORTIONS IN ONE HUNDRED 
PARTS OF REFUSE. 

Paper, six different grades 74.5 

Rags, clothing, bagging, twine 12.2 

Carpets, four grades 3.3 

Bottles, common and proprietary 2.5 

Metals, iron, brass, lead and zinc 2.1 

Tin, all sizes and kinds 1.4 

Leather, shoes and scraps 1.9 

Rubber, shoes, hose and mats 2 

Barrels, whole 1.4 

Other salable material .5 



city's refuse was gathered and marketed for the benefit of one 
contractor, who, after rough sorting it at the clumps, conveyed 
the remainder of the refuse in scows to fill land. 

THE REFUSE UTILIZATION STATION IN BOSTON. 

Up to 1898 the city of Boston collected the refuse and rubbish 
with the ashes, and towed the larger part to sea outside the har- 
bor. Under the influence of tides and winds the lighter portions 
were carried to adjoining beaches, causing complaints and threats 
of litigation. The matter was taken up by the city Board of 
Health, under the leadership of Dr. Samuel H. Durgin, president, 
resulting in action by the Mayor and the City Council, who asked 
for plans and estimates for a disposal station for dry refuse. 

The designs, estimates and superintendence of the author were 
accepted by Mayor Josiah Quincy, and a contract was made, in 
1898, with a company organized for the purpose, for a term 
of ten years, with the privilege of purchase by the city at the end 
of five years, or an extension to the company for the same length 
of time. 

The city furnishes the ground, collects and delivers all the 
refuse, and pays the company $5,500 annually. The plant, which 
cost $30,000, was erected and is maintained and operated by the 
company, which receives all revenue from the material sorted, 
and disposes of the residue. 

The station is located at the Fort Hill dumping wharf, on 
Atlantic avenue, about one-half mile from City Hall, nearly in the 
geographical center of the city, and on the line of the elevated 



THE MUNICIPAL WASTE OF AMERICAN TOWNS. 



49 



and surface car lines, It consists of a building 162 feet long, 
80 feet wide, with brick walls and steel columns supporting a 




FIG. 1. THE REFUSE UTILIZATION STATION, BOSTON. 

wooden roof. (Fig. I.) There is a sub-basement under one-half of 
the building containing the baling presses and destructor. A large 




FIG. 2. THE RECEIVING ROOM AND CONVEYOR, BOSTON. 



5O THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

storage space is provided for receiving the waste, the carts, dis- 
charging with no delay, except for weighing each load. (Fig. 2.) 
From this receiving room the refuse, with a little preliminary sort- 
ing to remove heavier articles, is placed on an endless belt or mov- 
able iron platform 4 feet wide and 150 feet long, which carries it 
slowly toward the other end of the building. On each side of 
this moving conveyor stand files of men who pick out the several 
grades of paper, rags, cardboard, etc., and place in bins behind 
tfiem. 

/ The bottoms of these bins discharge into power-driven presses 
placed in the basement, which press the paper and rags into bales 
of 600 pounds. (Fig. 3.) The other articles, glass, iron, leather, 




FIG. 3. POWER AND HAND PRESSES, BOSTON. 

twine, etc., are removed to separate bins. The portions of refuse 
not worth saving, which remain on the conveyor, are discharged 
in a continuous stream into the destructor placed across the rear 
end of the building, everything worthless being burned without 
delay, and without rehandling or sorting. 

This destructor is of a special and peculiar type, built with 
interior walls of heavy fire-clay blocks, and exterior walls of red 
brick, solidly braced with buckstays and tie-rods; it is provided 
with fire-clay covers for the feeding holes, and doors for remov- 
ing ashes and clinker. (Fig. 4.) 

At the rear end, between the furnace and the chimney, is a 



THE MUNICIPAL WASTE OF AMERICAN TOWNS. 51 

6o-horsepower steam boiler with an independent fire-box, operated 
solely by heat from the destructor, and furnishing the power ~ 
for moving all the machinery for sorting, baling, driving a v 
dynamo for lighting the building (ten arc and thirty incandescent 
lamps), and for heating it in winter. No fuel has ever been used 
except the refuse, and but a portion of the heat developed is used. 
A boiler of 200 horsepower can be maintained at its full ca- 
pacity by the heat from the destructor. The draft is regulated by 




FIG. 4. THE CONVEYOR, DESTRUCTOR AND BOILER, BOSTON. 

heavy fire-clay dampers, the surplus heat going through a bye- 
pass to the chimney a self-supporting steel shaft 140 feet high, 
lined with fire brick. The plant operates from 8 to 12 hours a 
day, dependent upon the supply of refuse, and has a capacity of 
500 cubic yards in 24 hours. 

The refuse is collected from city districts which include the 
business and a part of the manufacturing section, besides a large 
area of the residential part, the estimated population being 200,- 
ooo, and covering 95 to 100 miles of streets. The collection is 
made daily by 17 large market wagons, and by 31 paper carts, the 



52 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 



daily average being from 50 to 65 loads ; a maximum of 100 loads 
has been dealt with. 

The character and composition of this refuse is very nearly the 
same as in New York, but the separation of the various grades of 
paper and saving of minor articles is much more thoroughly done. 
The quantities sorted cannot be accurately stated, but in a general 
way it can be said that 50 per cent, by weight and 65 per cent, 
by volume is sorted available for market. The amount burned is 

TABLE XXII. APPROXIMATE QUANTITIES OF REFUSE RECEIVED 
AT BOSTON STATION. 



Year 


Loads 


Estimated 
Lbs. per Load 


Cubic Yds. 


Tons 


1899 

IQOO 
I9OI 
1902 

!903 

1904 
1905 

1906 


16,926 
16,423 

17,585 
16,684 

15,875 
16,234 
16,008 


796 

,045 
,045 
,045 
,045 
,045 
,405 


...... 


6,736 
8,581 
9,188 

8,717 
8,294 
8,482 

8,364 
11,067 




104,407 




I 


Total amou: 
Yearly aver 
Weekly 
Daily 


nts (8 years) 


69,429 
8,678 
167 
28 


age . 









about 25 per cent, by volume ; 10 to 12 per cent, is worthless and 
is removed, with the 15 per cent, of ashes remaining from com- 
bustion, to the adjoining dumping scows and towed to sea. 

The destructor was the first of its type erected, being a radical 
departure from the experimental furnace of Waring, and in many 
points, unlike the existing types of American crematories. It is 
a down-draft furnace, taking all the material through a chute 
kept continuously supplied by the conveyor belt, the air for com- 
bustion entering through the same opening on the top of the 
furnace. This kind of bulky waste requires larger furnace ca- 
pacity and more air than the usual garbage and rubbish, and 
the grates and flues must be arranged to allow the free and un- 
interrupted passage of a larger volume of gases, to avoid back 
fire when the furnace is full. There must also be ample provision 
for detaining small floating particles of ash or partly burned bits 
of paper, a point usually overlooked in American practice. 



THE MUNICIPAL WASTE OF AMERICAN TOWNS. 53 

The boiler was intended only for the work of this plant, as no 
use could be made of the surplus heat, and the power now em- 
ployed is less than 50 per cent, of the capacity that can be de- 
veloped. If an opportunity offered, a boiler of 200 horsepower 
could be operated by the gases of combustion, and the earning 
capacity of the plant in steam power be increased nearly four 
times. 

The automatic charging by the conveyor belt requires only 
two men to operate this furnace, an important saving as com- 
pared with incinerators where four to six men are constantly 
needed to fire by hand, stoke, and remove ashes. There was at 
first a secondary fire box provided for consuming gases by extra 
fuel, but as this was not needed, in repairing the furnace after 
six years of continuous use it was deleted. But few changes or 
alterations have been found necessary, these comprising power 
presses instead of hand, an ash lift for removing ashes and rub- 
bish, and a hoist for loading the bales of paper. While there is 
no direct revenue from this plant to the city, it receives the 
greater benefit from this system of disposal, as the delivery of 
the refuse at this central station is less expensive than before, -the 
cost of transportation outside the harbor is saved and the sanitary 
disposal is a vast advantage over the former methods with their 
attendant nuisances and constant complaints. 

At the expiration of the contract of the Refuse Utilization 
Company the city proposes to erect a larger station on the same 
site and conduct the work by its own agents for its own benefit. 

The work of this station for a continuous period of ten years 
is a striking illustration of the value of practical business methods 
applied to the recovery of waste materials heretofore lost. 

It also points a moral in favor of successful municipal service 
by contract as contrasted with other works of the same general 
character, where the station has been operated by city employees, 
with apparatus theoretically designed to be perfect, but practically 
proved to be altogether inadequate. 

THE FORTY-SEVENTH STREET REFUSE UTILIZATION STATION, 
NEW YORK CITY. 

At the incoming of the reform city government of New York, 
in 1902, the Commissioner of Street Cleaning, Dr. J. McG. Wood- 



54 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

bury, caused to be erected on a pier extending into the Hudson 
River at Forty-seventh street, a rubbish incinerator described by 
the designer, Mr. H. De B. Parsons, C. E., as follows: 




FIG. 5. THE FORTY- SEVENTH STREET REFUSE STATION, N. Y. CITY. 

The design of the incinerator, Fig. 5, consists of three cells, each 
having thirty square feet of grate area. The products of combustion 
pass over the cells into the smoke flue in such a manner that the product 
from cell No. i has to pass over cells Nos. 2 and 3 ; the product of com- 
bustion from cell No. 2 mixes with the products from cell No. I, and 
together they pass over cell No. 3; and that from cell No. 3 mixes with 
the products from cells Nos. i and 2, and is intimately mixed again in 
passing along a tortuous flue to the base of the stack. The result of this 
arrangement has been highly satisfactory,, as regards the non-production 
of smoke. Taking a stormy day, when the material was brought to the 
incinerator wet, the smoke was seldom visible for more than about 
seventy-five feet from the top of the stack, and then only during the 
period of stoking one of the grates. 

This incinerating plant was constructed as an experiment. In order 
that it might be free from any hindrance from injunction or otherwise, 
lest it might create a nuisance to neighboring property, it was decided to 
locate the plant on one of the city piers, about 250 feet from the bulkhead 
line. The permanency of location, of course, was not considered, the 
idea being that if the plant could be constructed quickly, and show that 
combustion could be carried on without creating a nuisance, it would lead 
to the introduction in the future of other stations, more favorably situ- 
ated, and at which better facilities could be provided for the reception 
of the material and for picking the same. 



THE MUNICIPAL WASTE OF AMERICAN TOWNS. 



55 



Shortly after the incinerator was built some changes were 
found necessary. The flues connecting with the chimney were 
simplified to allow a shorter passage of the gasses. A larger 
boiler was installed with more direct connection with the furnace ; 
a picking belt, or conveyor (Fig. 6), with bins for sorting the 




FIG. 6. CONVEYOR AND SORTING BINS, NEW YORK STATION. 

refuse, and an engine and dynamo for electric lighting were 
added. 

An effort was made to change the method of charging by 
using an automatic conveyor direct to the charging openings, but 
it was found impracticable owing to the peculiar construction of 
the incinerator. After a period of about four years the cells were 
found to be greatly damaged by the heat, and specifications were 
prepared by Mr. Parsons calling for a new construction of a 
two-cell incinerator to be connected with the large boiler. 

These two cells were to be built with interior walls of concrete 
9 inches thick, and with exterior red brick walls 13 inches thick, 
the whole bound together with buckstays and angles in the usual 
manner. There were two top-charging holes for each furnace 
with heavy doors protected by fire-clay slabs. 

The concrete walls for interior lining was to be made with 



56 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

one part Atlas cement, two parts powdered slate, and one part 
of clean steam ashes from not less than l /% inch in diameter. The 
grates were in sections five inches deep, tapering in thickness 24 
down to 5/1 6 inch and spaced ^4 inch. 

No reinforcement of the interior walls was used. The contract 
was let, the incinerators built and work begun. Cracks and 




FIG. 7. CHARGING THE INCINERATOR, NEW YORK STATION. 

breaks presently appeared in the interior walls, rapid disintegra- 
tion of the whole structure took place, and in a month it was 
practically destroyed. No incinerator has as yet taken its place 
and the refuse, after rough picking, is removed with the ashes 
to Riker's Island. 

The tables following, condensed from the reports of Mr. F. L. 
Stearns, engineer of Street Cleaning Department, show the work 
done in two incomplete trials of the first incinerator. There are 
no reports from the second one : 

REPORT OF FORTY-SEVENTH STREET INCINERATOR, NEW YORK, 
OCTOBER 7, 1904. 

The measurements for weights, bulk, and fuel value of waste 
were made on the loads received for one-half day. The tests 
for power were made on the entire day. 



THE MUNICIPAL WASTE OF AMERICAN TOWNS. 
TABLE XXIII. QUANTITIES RECEIVED. 



57 





No. 

of 
Loads 


Cubic 
Yards 


Cubic 
Yds. per 
Load 


Weight 
Pounds 


Weight 

per Cubic 
Yard 


City carts 


44 


33i 


7 .6 , 


48,100 1 


140 Ibs. 


Private carts 


10 


3 n 


J Q 


4 Oo 1 

















TABLE XXIV. SORTED MATERIAL. 





Cubic 
Yds. 


Wt., 
Lbs. 




Cubic 
Yds. 


Wt., 
Lbs. 


Newspapers 


08 


c 184. 


Raes 


6-\ 


i 007 


Manila paper 


<?4* 


T 2 50 


Baggingf 


i 


184 


Pasteboard 


10 ^ 


4..QCQ 


Carpets 


i 




Mixed paper 
Mixed paper and 
rags 


53 
6 


2,613 
62 < 


Shoes 
Hats 


i 
\ 


180 
1 7 


Books 


4 


2 ^0 


Rope 


I 


ill 


Iron and tin 


16 


1,942 


Barrels 


2 I 


2,826 


Bottles 





363 


Boxes 


I i 


I 4OO 














Totals 


333? 


jy.MS 


Totals 


42 \ 


5,999 



Total picked out, 23,114 Ibs.; 48.8 per cent, by weight, 63.5 per 

cent, by volume. 
Total burned, 24,275 Ibs.; 51.2 per cent, by weight, 36.5 per cent. 

by volume. 
Total ashes from combustion, 3,529 Ibs. = 6.8 cubic yards, at 

519 Ibs. per yard. 
Percentage of ashes of amount burned, 10.7 by weight, 3.1 by 

volume. 

TABLE XXV. EXPERIMENTAL TRIAL FOR STEAM POWER OF 47TH 
STREET INCINERATOR. 

Duration of test 4^ hours 

Quantity of rubbish burned 23,011 .o Ibs. 

Average horse-power developed 232 . 7 

euantity of rubbish to produce i horse-power per hour . 21.9 Ibs. 

rate surface 1 54 . o 'sq. ft. 

Horse-power per hour per square foot of grate area. . . i . 51 

Heating surface of boiler 2,759 .9 sq. ft. 

Heating surface per square foot of grate area 17 .9 sq. ft. 

Water evaporated per pound of rubbish i . 59 Ibs. 

Percentage of ash from rubbish 14 . 5 

Weight of rubbish per cubic yard in .o Ibs. 



58 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

No use could be found for the power developed, though this 
was estimated at $8,000 per year in value. Owing to the peculiar 
construction of the furnace, it was fed by hand through front 
side doors by the continuous work of three men. The ashes 
were removed through the back side doors by two other men. 
The work required a foreman, an engineer and his assistant and 
two laborers for charging the boiler fire-box with large bulky 
articles that could not be burned in the incinerator. The force 
employed was nine to eleven men daily, varying with the quan- 
tities brought by the city teams. The city received payment for 
the sorted paper and rubbish at the rate of about $3.20 per ton of 
recovered paper. Applying this amount toward the expenses of 
the plant there was a deficiency of approximately $300 per week 
on the whole operation of the refuse station. 

The following table of volume and weights per cubic yard is 
from the report of Mr. Stearns on the Forty-seventh Street 
Station* : 

TABLE XXVI. VOLUME AND WEIGHTS OF REFUSE N. Y. CITY. 



Newspapers, picked. . . . 


5,185 Ibs. 98 cu. 


yds. 


Manila paper, " ... 


1,2 50 


54* ' 


M 


Pasteboard. 


4,909 


^05 


" 


Mixed paper, 


2,613 


53 


" 


Rags, 


. . 1,007 


6* ' 


" 


Mixed rags and paper 


62 s 


6 


" 


Iron and tins, 




16 " 


" 


Bagging, 


184 


i 


" 


oo o ' 

Carpets, 


274 




" 


Barrels " 


2 826 


7i " 


" 


Books 


2 ^Q 


o 





Bottles, 


363 


i " 





Shoes 


186 


^ " 


" 


Hats 


17 


\ " 





Rope, 


Ill 


m 


" 


Boxes 


1,400 II 


" 


Total 




yds. 


23,114 Ibs. 372 cu. 


Waste 


24,272 " 218^ " 




Total. . 




S. <?Qoi CU. 


yds. 


47,^80 It 



Percentage picked 48 . 8% by weight, or 63% by bulk 

of waste 51-2% " " 37%" 



'Transactions A. Soc. C. E., Vol LX., p. 345, 1908. 



THE MUNICIPAL WASTE OF AMERICAN TOWNS. 
THE VALUE OF REFUSE. 



59 



The method of recovery and the value of marketable refuse in 
the whole of New York City is thus stated : 

The rubbish is picked over at the dumps [and utilization stations] by 
a trimming contractor, who pays the city for the privilege. The value of 
this marketable refuse to the city is about $3.20 per ton. The Commis- 
sioner of Street Cleaning has stated that this figure is too low ; probably 
it should be increased 50 per cent. It is figured thus : The average rub- 
bish collections are 300 tons per day, or 1,800 tons a week, of which the 
marketable proportion is 35 per cent., say 600 tons. For this the con- 
tractor pays the city approximately $1,920 weekly, or at the rate of $3.20 
per ton. In this case the "City" comprises the boroughs of Manhattan 
and Bronx only, as Brooklyn, Queens and Richmond deal with their own 
refuse. The total yearly amount of marketable material is 93,600 tons, 
and the payment made for the privilege of sorting everything saleable 
is $110,000. 

DELANCEY STREET REFUSE DISPOSAL STATION, NEW YORK CITY. 

Following the construction of the Forty-seventh Street Sta- 
tion, the Department of Street Cleaning caused to be erected in 
November, 1905, a combined refuse incinerator and power plant 
in Delancey street beneath the Williamsburg Bridge. The build- 
ing (Fig. 8) which contains the furnaces and boilers is a one- 




FIG. 8. THE DELANCEY ST. REFUSE DISPOSAL STATION, N. Y. CITY. 

story structure 70 x 150 feet in area, with brick walls and a steel 
trussed roof. It is divided into two rooms by a fire wall, in the 



6o THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

front of which is the receiving, baling and sorting floor; at the 
rear end are the boilers used for steam generation. 

From the sorting floor a short conveyor (Fig. 9) carries the 




FIG. 9. THE CONVEYOR AND SORTING BINS, DELANCEY STREET 
STATION, NEW YORK CITY. 

refuse to the top of the furnaces, discharging between them, so 
that they may be fed by hand simultaneously. During the pas- 
sage of the refuse over the conveyor the trimming contractor's 
/men pick out a small proportion of the paper, which is baled by 
power presses and removed from the building. The remainder 
of the refuse furnishes fuel for the operation of the furnaces and 
the development of steam power. 

There are two furnaces placed back to back, with a common 
smoke flue connection to the chimney. These furnaces are the 
same dimensions, but are unlike in interior construction. Fur- 
nace No. i, designed by Mr. H. De B. Parsons, originally fol- 
lowed the same general construction as that of the Forty-seventh 
street incinerator, except that there were two separate cells instead 
of three, and two charging holes placed on the side and de- 
livering the refuse over a short incline to the fire grates which 
form the floor of each of the two cells. The grates consist of 



THE MUNICIPAL WASTE OF AMERICAN TOWNS. 61 

wrought-iron bars riveted up in sections. Each cell is a com- 
plete furnace in itself, having a charging hole, and stoking and 
ash pit doors. 

The gases of combustion pass upward to a cross flue which is 
connected with the boiler and the stack, and is controlled by 
large fire clay dampers. Each cell has a sliding door in the front 
end for the admission of large pieces of furniture, mattresses, etc. 

The second furnace, designed by Mr. F. L. Stearns, of the 
Department of Street cleaning, is practically the same size, but 
has a different arrangement of feed holes and grates. There is 
but one side feed-hole, which is a straight passage from the 
charging floor to the fire grates, the other feed-hole being on the 
top near the outlet, and large enough to receive barrels and other 
bulky matter. There are two sets of iron fire grates, placed 
horizontally, one above the other, 'so that partially burned matter 
from the upper set of grates may fall to the lower and there be 
wholly consumed^ the ashes being raked out of the ash pits below. 

There are two 2oo-horsepower Sterling water tube steam boil- 
ers, each with 1,950 square feet of heating surface. These are 
provided with the regular fire grates for using coal, and can be 
run independently of the incinerators. The boilers are fed from 
a pump in the adjoining building, the feed line passing through 
an economizer coil in the base of the stack, which heats the feed 
water to a high temperature. 

In the adjoining building are placed two loo-k.w. and one 
5o-k.w. direct connection engines, with generators of multipolar 
direct-current type, wound for 250 volts, operating a three-wire 
system. Their ratings permit an overload capacity of 25 per 
cent. The distribution, which is controlled by an eight-panel 
switchboard, provides for two circuits for local lighting and five 
for the bridge, which are arc lamps connected on the multiple 
system. 

The chimney of these incinerators is of the radial brick type, 
and is 200 feet high; inside diameter 4^2 feet at the top. The 
foundation is concrete, 14 feet thick, on 30 foot piles over an 
area 24 feet square. 

The cost of the building, chimney, furnaces, conveyor 

and outside driveway was $34,193.00 

Boilers and Electrical Equipment 49,391.00 

$83,584-00 



62 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

The saving effected by this method of disposal over the former 
one of dumping was expected to be $30,300 a year. This is 36.8 
per cent, of the cost, and at this rate the whole expense of the 
plant, maintenance and repairs would have been paid in three 
years. The amount of refuse handled daily (approximately 
1,050 cubic yards) is about one-fifth of the total daily output of 
the boroughs of Manhattan and Bronx. 




FIG. 10. THE UNLOADING OF SCOWS AT SEA, NEW YORK CITY. 

After the construction of this incinerator many changes were 
made. The charging holes were removed from the side and 
placed in the middle line of the furnace. The inner partitions 
between the cells were removed, and the incinerator thus became 
a rectangular open chamber floored with cast-iron fire bars and 
charged by two openings through the roof. 

After its operation for six months the walls showed signs of 
weakness, and repairs were made. Subsequently, the strain put 
upon this furnace for developing high temperature for electric 
lighting proved its inability to withstand the pressure, and after 
an intermittent use of about two years the east incinerator was 
in too bad a condition to be operated. 



THE MUNICIPAL WASTE OF AMERICAN TOWNS. 63 

At the present time the west furnace is used for destroying 
refuse rejected by the picking contractor, but no steam power is 
developed. The boilers have been removed, the machinery for 
electric lighting is dismantled and the whole plant is in poor 
condition for anything like satisfactory work. 

TABLE XXVII. DATA AND RESULTS OF EVAPORATIVE TESTS; 

RUBBISH INCINERATOR AND ELECTRIC LIGHTING STATION, 

DELANCEY SLIP, BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, 

NEW YORK. 

Trials made by H. De B. Parsons. 



DATA 


West Boiler 


East Boiler 


Grate surface of furnace . . 




113 sq. ft. 
1,890 

60 

Dec. 20, 1905 
5.5 hours 
Fair 
Dry 
3i,i93lbs. 

8,926 " 

22,267 Ibs. 
10% 

29, 92 5 Ibs. 
36,568 " 


6,435 
610 
200 

2 
2 


74 sq. ft. 
1,890 

60 

Dec. 21, 1905 
5.5 hours 
Rainy 
Wet 
21,175 Ibs. 

7.245 " 


Effective water-heating surface . 
Surface of feed-water heater coil 
in flue 

TOTAL QUANTITIES 
Date of Trial 




Duration of trial 




Weather 




Condition of rubbish . . 


6,876 
1,800 
250 


Weight of rubbish delivered. . . . 
Weight of rubbish picked out as : 
marketable. . . 
paper. . . . 
rags 
cans 
Weight of rubbish burned 
Weight of ash estimated 




13, 930 Ibs. 
. 10% 

24, 67 5 Ibs. 
30,054 ' 


Total weight of water fed to 
boiler 




Equivalent water evaporated, 
from and at 2 12 
Number of furnace men : 
stokers 
feeders 
Boiler horse-power developed . . . 

ECONOMIC RESULTS 
Water evaporated, actual, per 
pound of rubbish 


6 
3 


192.7 

i .34 Ibs. 
i . 64 " 




I58-4 

i. 77 Ibs. 
2.16 " 


Equivalent evaporated per Ib. 
of rubbish 









From an article contributed by Mr. F. L. Stearns to the dis- 
cussion before the American Society of Civil Engineers, the fol- 
lowing explanation is included : 

The plant began by furnishing 250 amperes at 250 volts and lighting 
only a part of the bridge. Later the load was increased until 800 am- 



OF THC 

UNIVERSITY 

OF 




64 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTK. 

peres at the same voltage was generated, lighting the whole bridge. In 
creating this power, however, the plant was run beyond its reasonable 
capacity, 'resulting in the melting of the fire brick in the flue leading to 
the boilers, which it is now realized was too small. This portion of melted 
brick, together with ashes and other elements carried from the furnace 
in suspension, filled the flues with a slag like iron ore ; while the melting 
brick gradually disappeared until the top of the flues caved in and the 
plant was obliged to discontinue lighting the bridge and was used simply 
to dispose of the rubbish. 

The Edison Company about this time offered to light the bridge at the 
rate of 3^ cents per kw-h., which was cheaper than it could be done 
by a plant of this kind, however efficiently run, and this offer was there- 
fore accepted and the use of the plant for lighting discontinued. Another 
furnace has been built close to the boiler, the connection between the two 
being, instead of a flue, an opening the full width of the boiler and fur- 
nace. This has as yet been run for only a year, producing steam to run 
the conveyor and presses without any repairs, melting of brick or pro- 
duction of slag. As there seems no use to put the power to other than 
lighting, and as this was being obtained more cheaply than the cost of 
furnishing it by the incinerating plant, this is used now simply for in- 
cinerating rubbish and the waste heat is permitted to go up the stack to 
the outside air. 

The failure of the incinerating plant to light the Williamsburg Bridge 
does not prove that rubbish is not a good fuel, neither does it prove that 
it is impractical to generate steam power with rubbish as a fuel. Only 
twelve years ago this burning of rubbish alone was untried, and to-day 
we are not only trying to compete with coal-burning plants of the same 
capacity but with the large plants of the Edison Company. Experience 
with this plant seems to have demonstrated that, in competition with 
coal-fed plants of equal size, rubbish-incinerating power plants can fur- 
nish steam power economically. But no small plant can furnish power 
as cheaply as a large one ; and a large incinerating plant is impracticable 
because of the undesirability and great cost of hauling the rubbish from 
such great distances as would be necessary to provide fuel for such a 
plant. 

This statement by Mr. Stearns treats the question of the opera- 
tion of the lighting plants very tenderly. The facts appear to be 
that the design of the furnaces was not based upon correct prin- 
ciples. It is true that the combustion of this class of waste had 
not been done in an extended way except at one point in the 
United States, but the calorific value of the fuel was fairly well 
understood, the quantities to be dealt with were known, the boiler 
power to be developed was a fixed quantity, and with these 
factors there should have been no great difficulty in constructing 
a furnace which should be equal to the work. 

The actual results were most lamentable, one furnace having 
collapsed within six months after the first installation, necessitat- 
ing many repairs, and even after changes were made in the de- 
sign, there were still unfortunate results in the production of 
steam and in the maintenance of the furnaces themselves. 



THE MUNICIPAL WASTE OF AMERICAN TOWNS. 65 

They were theoretical designs evolved from calculated formula, 
and, as a matter of fact, failed almost completely when it came 
to a practical trial under existing conditions. It is a demonstra- 
tion of a truth that sometimes occurs in practical mechanics, that 
a theoretical design from carefully prepared data does not do the 
work nearly as well as even a rough construction by a practical 
man who understands the power of heat, and who can design and 
maintain his constructions from his own personal experience. 







FIG. 11. TIPPING ASHES AND RUBBISH INTO SCOWS, N. Y. CITY. 

FINAL DISPOSITION OF ASHES AND REFUSE OF BROOKLYN. 

In July, 1903, a five-year contract was made with the American 
Railway Traffic Company, organized to take over the contract 
from private parties for the final disposition of the ashes, street 
sweepings and refuse collected in the borough. There were 
established thirteen receiving stations, built and maintained at the 
expense of the company, at which the wastes (not including 
garbage) were delivered by the city carts. At two stations the 
carts (Fig. 12) discharged directly into cars run over the trolley 
lines of the Brooklyn Rapid Transit Company to a dumping 
ground near Coney Island. At eleven other stations the city 
carts discharge the ashes and sweepings into steel bins having a 
capacity of 9^4 cubic yards, weighing, when loaded, from five to 
eight tons. Four bins constitute a load, which is taken to the 



66 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 




FIG. 12. THE CARTS FOR COLLECTION OF ASHES, NEW YORK AND 

BROOKLYN. 




FIG. 13. ASH BINS REMOVED BY TROLLEY, BROOKLYN. 



THE MUNICIPAL WASTE OF AMERICAN TOWNS. 67 

dumping ground by trolley. All ashes and street sweepings are 
disposed of in this manner. (Fig. 13.) 

The refuse, separated at the houses, is delivered by the city 
carts at the stations in separate buildings, wherein the marketable 
portions of the rubbish are recovered by sorting, the residuum 
being sent with the ashes to the dumps, or to the East New York 
Disposal Station, where it is destroyed and the steam power 
generated is utilized. 

THE EAST NEW YORK DISPOSAL STATION. 

The largest station operated by the American Railway Traffic 
Company, under their contract with Brooklyn, is at East New 
York, a suburb of Brooklyn proper. 

The building of this station is 150 feet by 75 feet, wooden 
frame, corrugated iron covering, two stories high. One-half the 
area of the upper floor space is devoted to the ash collection 
teams which dump their loads into pockets, or bins, beneath which 
the cars of the trolley line are loaded. 

The other half of the upper floor contains a short belt con- 
veyor for sorting the refuse brought by city teams, the picking 
bins, and the office. The second half-floor below has another 
conveyor which receives the rubbish brought from the other 
stations, and which is burned without further sorting. 

Conveyor No. i, above, discharges into Conveyor No. 2 below, 
and the latter discharges directly into the furnaces. 

The incinerator is a double furnace of the "bagasse burner" 
type, the fire boxes being divided by a bridge wall, so that either 
may be run independently of the other. There are two grates 
placed horizontally ; the upper consists of iron pipes connected 
into headers outside the furnace, for water circulation, and spaced 
one foot apart. The lower grates are of the usual cast-iron fire- 
bar pattern. There are two doors at the front of each furnace 
for stoking and for removing ashes. Both furnaces connect with 
a common combustion chamber, and this with a Sterling water- 
tube boiler of 300 horsepower. The chimney is of radial brick 
type, 100 feet high. 

The steam power employed is about one-half the capacity of 
the plant, and is utilized for operating an air compressor for 
drills and hammers in the neighboring repair shop of the Brook- 



68 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

lyn Rapid Transit Railroad Company, and for heating the build- 
ings and running the conveyors. The ash collection is from 50 
to 70 loads, and the refuse 20 to 40 loads daily. All the baling 
is done by hand. 

There are no available data in regard to the amounts sorted 
and destroyed at this station, since this is a private contract and 
is not under the control of the city. The American Railway 
Traffic Company is annually transporting one million yards of 
material, which represents the ashes, street sweepings and rubbish 
left after sorting. The company receives 35 cents per cubic yard 
for this work of final disposition, besides the revenue from all 
recovered material and the value of the steam power generated 
at the incinerator plant. 

During the period that this system has been in operation, three 
and one-half years, about eighty-five acres of sunken marsh land 
have been raised to the grade of the surrounding country and 
made good taxable area. 

THE DECARIE REFUSE INCINERATOR, BROOKLYN. 
The American Railway Traffic Company has a small Decarie 




FIG. 14. METHOD OF DISCHARGING ASH BINS, BROOKLYN. 



THE MUNICIPAL WASTE OF AMERICAN TOWNS. 69 

incinerator in use in one of the Brooklyn districts. This is a 
square box of steel plate 10 x 10 feet and about 10 feet in height, 
with steel smoke stack 125 feet high. The usual water jacket 
construction is followed in this case, the double walls having 
space for water circulation, which is connected with the water- 
tube grates and the steam generator or square boiler box which 
forms the interior roof of the furnace. There is no steam power 
obtained from the plant, the conveyor for sorting being driven 
by electric motor supplied by currents from the street connections. 
The incinerator burns no garbage or other material than the dry 
combustible matters rejected in the process of picking. The 
capacity of the plant is stated at 30 to 40 cart loads daily, about 
200 to 250 cubic yards. There are no reports of quantities re- 
ceived, sorted, or burned, and nothing is known as to the cost of 
operating and necessary repairs. 

THE THIRTY-SEVENTH STREET RUBBISH INCINERATOR, SOUTH 

BROOKLYN. 

For the disposal of the refuse of this district of South Brooklyn, 
the Street Cleaning Bureau has built a small incinerator of a 
simple design. This is a square box of steel plate (Fig. 15), lined 




FIG. 15. RUBBISH INCINERATOR, THIRTY-SEVENTH STREET, SOUTH 

BROOKLYN. 



70 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

with fire brick, floored with cast-iron grates, with ash pit below, 
and flue connection with a short chimney at the rear above the 
fire bars. The furnace is charged through one large door at the 
level of the tipping platform. There is a corrugated iron covering 
house and inclined approach and platform for the collection carts. 
The work is carried on by one man who recovers whatever of 
value he can pick out of the refuse as his payment for destroying 
the remainder. 

THE REFUSE DISPOSAL STATION IN BUFFALO. 

In 1903 the city of Buffalo had under consideration a plan for 
the reorganization of its service for the collection and disposal 
of waste; also for the disposal of sewage from a large district 
of the city that was below the level of the main sewerage system. 
An examination made by the Commissioner of Public Works, 
Col. Francis G. Ward, of several plans and methods, decided him 




FIG. 16. THE REFUSE UTILIZATION STATION, BUFFALO. 

to accept the designs of Mr. C. M. Morse, deputy engineer com- 
missioner, for the erection of a combined sewage pumping and 
refuse disposal plant on ground owned by the city at the Ham- 
burg Canal. 

The contract for the collection and disposal of the ashes, garb- 
age and refuse for a term of five years, was awarded, after com- 
petition, to the Buffalo Sanitary Company, and provided for the 



THE MUNICIPAL WASTE OF AMERICAN TOWNS. 71 

erection of a refuse disposal station adjoining the sewage pump- 
ing station, which was completed in June, 1905. 

The building is of brick, is 200 feet long, 50 feet wide and 25 




FIG. 17. TIPPING FLOOR AND CONVEYOR, BUFFALO. 

feet high at the eaves, with a steel trussed roof. (Fig. 16.) A 
division of the building into two parts is made by a fireproof 
wall ; the main receiving room is 100 by 50 feet, and affords ample 
space for dumping the four or five hundred cubic yards of refuse 




FIG. 18. CONVEYOR AND SORTING BINS, BUFFALO. 



72 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

received daily. Beyond the fireproof wall is the destructor, 
separated from the adjoining sewerage pumping station by an- 
other wall, through which the flues connect to the fire box of 
the steam boiler in the pumping station. 

Between the receiving floor and the destructor is placed the 
conveyor, which carries the refuse up an incline to the floor of the 
sorting room, and thence 60 feet between the sorting bins. (Fig. 
18.) 

After passing the second floor the remaining worthless rubbish 
passes up the inclined conveyor (Fig. 18), and is discharged 
through a chute into one or another of the three charging holes, 




FIG. 19. DESTRUCTOR AND STEAM BOILER, BUFFALO. 

as may be desired. When the works are operating this stream 
of combustibles is constant, no hand-firing being required. 

The destructor is 33 feet long, 12 feet wide and 13 feet high. 
The exterior is strongly braced by buckstays and tie-rods, and 
by longitudinal angle bars to which the frames of all doors are 
bolted. (Fig. 19.) 

The interior construction really comprises a double furnace, 
with independent fire boxes and fire-brick grates for sustaining 
the refuse. The area of the fire boxes is 36 square feet, that of 
the refuse grates 160 square feet; a total of 196 square feet of 



THE MUNICIPAL WASTE OF AMERICAN TOWNS. 73 

grate surface. The fire boxes are separated by a bridge wall, so 
that they may be worked independently under forced draft. Be- 
hind the fire bars are two sets of fire-brick grates, one above the 
other, but divided from each other by a longitudinal bridge wall. 
Above the upper set of grates is the main receiving chamber of 
the destructor, approximately 20 feet long, 8 feet wide and 6 
feet high, interior dimensions. At the rear end is a combustion 
chamber common to both furnaces to which all the gases are 
directed and from whence they are taken into the boiler of the 
sewage pumping station, or direct to the chimney by a bye-pass. 

A small 75-horsepower boiler is set in connection with the 
destructor for the purpose of electric lighting, operating the con- 
veyor and bailing presses, and for furnishing forced draft. By 
means of sliding dampers this boiler can be put out of commission 
when connection is made with the boilers of the sewerage plant. 

The combustion of refuse is accelerated by forced draft from 
a 6o-inch blower, introduced on each side of the destructor under 
the ash pits of the fire boxes. The chimney, which is connected 
with the boilers of the sewage pumping station and with the 
destructor, is 150 feet high, of radial brick, reinforced by a lining 
of fire brick to withstand the high temperature generated by the 
destructor. 

The rooms which contain the dynamo and engine are separated 
from the main destructor room, and bathrooms and all other 
necessary conveniences have been provided for the comfort of the 
employees. The approximate cost of the refuse disposal station 
and all machinery, inclusive of the chimney, was $50,000. 

The quantities of refuse received at the station for the first six 
months of its work, when under the control of the Buffalo Sani- 
tary Company, was reported as follows : 

TABLE XXVIII. QUANTITIES AND DISPOSITION OF REFUSE, 
BUFFALO. 

Quantities Disposition 

June, T 95 I2 .736 Rubbish, dirt, ashes sent to 

July, I 95 I 4.599 dump from station, 2,116 

September, 1905 15,176 cubic yards. 

October, 1905 1 5,3 9 5 Tins marketed, 452 cubic yds. 

December, 1905 10,887 Iron marketed, 2 tons. 

January, 1906 10,924 Paper marketed not reported. 

Delivered at Station . . 79,7 17 cubic yards. 



74 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OK MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

In May, 1907, the city purchased the buildings and equipment 
from the Sanitary Company for a payment of $50,000, and have 
since operated the station for its own benefit. The gross returns 
for recovered articles and steam supplied to the sewage pumping 
plant for 4 months 10 days, May 20 to September 30, 1907, was 
$11,957.83. After deducting the cost of operating and adding 
the allowances formerly made to the Sanitary Company for 
steam, the net returns from the station for the period named is 
about $5,000, or at the rate of $1,250 per month, or $15,000 per 
year. 

The recovered articles included 2,362,417 pounds of paper, 83,- 
703 pounds of rags, 53,626 bottles and four car-loads of tins. 

The quantities received and sorted for one day, Oct. 14, 1907, 
were : 

14 bales of newspapers ' 9,07 5 Ibs. 

34 " mixed-paper 22,980 ' 

i Manila 53 5 ' 

i Rags 650 ' 

i Flour bags (paper) 63 5 ' 

51 bales 43.875 Ibs. 

FINAL DISPOSITION OF REFUSE AT LOWELL, MASS. 

Since 1892 this city has destroyed its garbage by cremation in 
an Engle Cremator, except during times when it has been sold to 
the farmers for feeding swine. This cremator was not of suf- 
ficient capacity for the work required, and in 1904 the city 
erected a small incinerator for the disposal of the refuse. 

The Decarie incinerator built at this place in 1904, at a cost of 
$10,000 for the furnace only, is a departure from the usual type 
of construction of this company. It is a circular, double-jacketed 
vertical boiler 8 feet in diameter and 10 feet high, having interior 
hollow pipe grates, arranged in a circle and at their upper ends 
tapped into the bottom sheet of the steam generator. On the 
front outside are two fuel grates arranged one above the other, 
the purpose being to make a down-draft from one grate through 
the other, the heat then passing into the incinerator. These grates 
and fire box are of no service and are not used. On the rear side 
exactly opposite to this is a square- jacketed brick chamber, having 
a grate at its upper and farther end, over which the gases from 



THE MUNICIPAL WASTE OF AMERICAN TOWNS. 



75 



the incinerator are' supposed to pass before reaching the chimney. 
The incinerator is charged through one large opening on the top 
24 inches in diameter. There are nine doors for firing and re- 
moving ashes, one large charging hole above, and eight smaller 
circular 4-inch openings for stoking. The water-jacket and the 
hollow grates are part of the circulating water system. This 
steam boiler system generates a small amount of steam, not 
enough to utilize for power and which is allowed to go to waste. 

The kinds of materials burned at this incinerator are rubbish, 
paper, small amounts of wood, sawdust, sweepings, barrels, and 
generally combustible refuse, with condemned food-stuffs from 
the market houses. An attempt has been made to burn garbage, 
but all the matter of this kind is found to pass through the grates 
into the ashpit below and is removed when partly burned, with 
the ashes. The furnace is not suited, nor is it used for the con- 
sumption of garbage in any considerable amount. 

The official report of quantities for the week beginning April i, 
1907, is 47,125 pounds, or an amount of 3 1/3 tons per day. 
Time occupied, 8 in the morning until 5 o'clock at night. Fuel 
used daily, 150 pounds of coal and about i to 2 cubic feet of 
wood. The following report of quantities and cost of operating 
is condensed from the official report of the city for the years 
named 1904 to 1907 inclusive : 

TABLE XXIX. RUBBISH AND MARKET REFUSE, LOWELL, MASS. 



PAPER AND 
RUBBISH 


Market 
Refuse 
Number 
Tons 
Reported 


Total 
Tons 
Collec- 
tion 


TOTAL 
COSTS 


YEAR 


Number 
Loads 
Collected 


Tons Tak- 
ing 6 Yds. 
to Load, 
200 Ibs. to 
Yard 


Per 
Year 


Per 

Ton 


1904.. . . 
1905.. . . 
1906 . . . 
1907.. . 

Totals. 


536 
606 

723 
708 


32i 
363 
433 
424 


33 
664 
1,046 
i,i95 


624 
1,027 

*,479 
1,619 


$992-92 
1,101 .20 
1,762 .45 
1,489.80 


$i-59 
i. 06 
1.19 
.89 


2.573 


i,54i 


3,208 


4,749 


$5,346.37 


1.18 



A report recently published has the following paragraph : 

Garbage crematories have been installed in many cities in this coun- 
try, but in a very large number of cases they have been reported as 




76 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

unsatisfactory or have later been superseded by other designs or by a 
different method. The crematories which are seen in American cities 
are furnaces operated under ordinary draft, usually with coal as a fuel. 
A recent examination of a furnace of this kind used, in this case, for 
the burning of market wastes, showed serious defects from a sanitary 
point of view. The heat was not great enough to destroy the odors at 
all times, and the heavy gases generated in the furnace, though dis- 
charged through a tall chimney, fell to the ground and were very offen- 
sive. The refuse was not completely burned, and the charred mass dis- 
charged from the furnace containing unburned material was offensive 
and much of it had to be reburned. Coal was being used, though not 
in large quantities, as the wastes contained much combustible material. 
The operation of this furnace in or near a populated district, in the 
manner in which it was being operated when examined, would be in- 
tolerable. 



* 



CHAPTER IV. 



MUNICIPAL ASHES. COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL. 

The largest item in waste disposal work is municipal ashes. 
The average quantity from towns using coal for domestic fuel 
is from 70 per cent, in winter to 50 per cent, in summer, an 
average of 65 per cent of the total waste collection for the year 
through. 

The composition and character of municipal ashes varies not 
only with the kind of coal used but also with other local conditions. 
The character of the people has much to do with this. In wealthy 
residential towns the ashes are far greater in quantity and contain 
more unburned coal. The reverse of this is true in populous 
towns largely made up of working people. The geographical 
locality has perhaps the most noticeable effect. In the cold winter 
season of the north the consumption of fuel goes on at a much 
higher rate than in the temperate and warmer regions of the 
Middle and Southern States. . 

These various considerations make it impossible to assign any 
fixed percentage of ashes to any community unless the particular 
conditions are known. 

The variation in American coals used for household fuels is 
roughly shown in the following table : 

TABLE XXX. APPROXIMATE ANALYSIS AND HEATING VALUES OF 
AMERICAN COAL. 





Fixed Car- 


Volatile 


Ash 


Heat 


KINDS OF COALS AND 


bon, Per 


Matter, Per 


per 


Units 


LOCALITIES 


Cent. Com- 


Cent. Com- 


Lb. 


Per Lb. 




bustible 


bustible 


Coal 


Coal 


Anthracite, Penn. and Col 


100 to 92 


o to 8 


10 .0 


13,700 


Semi- Anthracite, Penn. and W. 










Va.. . 


92 to 87 


8 to 13 


8 7 




Semi-bituminous: 111., Ind., la., 










Mo 
Bituminous: Pa.. W. Va., Va., 


87 to 78 


13 to 25 


5-6 


14,700 


Ga., Ky., Tenn 


78 to 50 


2 5 to 50 


6.0 


13,600 


Lignite: Mon., Wy., Col., Wash., 
Id., Cal.... 


Below co 


'\bove co 

















77 



78 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

The refuse of a coal fire includes fine ash, clinker, slate, coal 
partly coked, and unburned coal. The proportion of each varies 
with the variety of coal, the kind of furnace, and the skilfulness 
of the fireman. The ashes of anthracite coal burned in the houses 
of the larger Eastern cities have been analyzed, and the results 
given by Waring,* tabulated and reported by Koyl and Craven, 
are accepted as the standard. 

TABLE XXXI. ANALYSIS OF ASHES FROM ANTHRACITE COAL, NEW 
YORK CITY. (CRAVEN.) 



AVERAGE HOUSE COLLECTION 


Apart- 
ment 
Houses 


Large 
House 
Furnaces 


Factory 
Egg 
and Nut 


Steam 
Boilers, 
Pea Coal 


Unburned coal recoverable. . .20% 
Clinkers and partly-burned 
coal 1 5% 


35% 

20% 


40% 

I 5% 


25% 
30% 


20% 
4 0% 


Coarse ash and slate T 5% 










Fine ash 5% 


4 <r% 


4 r% 


4S% 


40% 













The proportions of unburned coal, clinker and fine ash by 
volume are very nearly the same as those by weight given above. 
This analysis was made shortly after the separation of wastes 
was instituted in New York City, and the quantities of unburned 
coal quoted in this table were then thought to be very large, but 
have since been found to be correct. 

Any one who wants to see the coal that is carried from his own 
and other households has only to inspect an ash dump after a rain- 
storm has washed away the upper coat of fine ashes. He will see 
enough unburned coal in sight to convince him of the fact that 
an average of 20 per cent., or 400 pounds of coal per ton of ashes 
is a comparatively safe estimate. 

The figures of the New York Commission are, for 1906, for 
Greater New York, two million tons of ashes taken from the 
households to Riker's Island and other dumping places. At an 
average of 20 per cent., or 400 pounds of coal per ton of ashes, this 
city is annually burying 400,000 tons of coal per year in preparing 
the foundations for the future municipal buildings to be built on 
this ground. By simply sifting out the coal and saving 50 per 
cent, of it, at the present market prices (and it will never be 



Disposition of the wastes of New York City, G. E. Waring, 1899. 



THE MUNICIPAL WASTE OF AMERICAN TOWNS. 



79 



lower) the city would provide in five years for enough money to 
erect the buildings to cover the site. 

What is true of New York is true of all American cities in a 
greater or lesser degree. All are equally wasteful and indifferent, 
because, perhaps, it is nobody's particular business to look after 
trifling details of this sort. 

The value of this fuel for heat production is an important 
factor in waste disposal work. Assuming that 20 per cent, of 
the coal and burnable clinker is recoverable it represents 400 
pounds of fuel per ton of ashes, and the value in heat units and 
rate per ton is shown in the following table : 



TABLE XXXII. HEATING POWER AND VALUE OF WASTE COAL 

(KOYL). 





Average 
Heat 

Units 


Per Ct. 
of Heat 

Units 


Value per Ton 
Recovered Coal 


New coal 


I I,OOO 


100% 


$5-5 


Recovered coal and clinker . . . 


8,000 


73% 


4.00 from ashes of 
new coal. 



Later tests of these ashes from households has shown the coal 
and clinker that can be utilized as fuel under forced draft to be 
larger in quantity but less in volume of heat units, averaging 
coal and clinker 35 per cent, and 5,000 B.T.U. of heat. The ques- 
tion of fuel value is discussed at length under other heads. 

The utilization of clinker from clean steam ashes for concrete 
manufacture of certain kinds is well-known, and is increasing in 
favor. In many places fine ash is screened, sifted and ground, and 
used as a constituent of mortar, with good results. Tests of 
this mortar demonstrate that it possesses the tensile strength of 
65 pounds per square inch, as compared with that of ordinary 
lime and mortar of 15 pounds per square inch, and that it has a 
crushing strength of 1,000 pounds as against 150 pounds strength 
of ordinary mortar. 

A large factory in New York uses fine coal ashes as a substi- 
tute for sand in certain kinds of brick-making, with entirely 
satisfactory results. It is also widely used for fireproofing in 
floor filling and similar construction work. 



8o THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

When dealing with disposal of wastes by incineration the ash 
resulting from combustion of the several kinds of refuse becomes 
an interesting factor. Not all waste produces the same returns in 
quantity or character when burned under different conditions. 

ASHES FROM THE COMBUSTION OF ENGLISH TOWNS' REFUSE. 

Under the English practice of burning all house refuse and 
ashes in furnaces operating at high temperature under forced 
draft, the residuum of ash and clinker is thoroughly calcined and 
freed from organic matters. There is a small amount of fine dust 
deposited in the combustion chamber and dust catchers of the 
furnaces, which is used as the basis of several kinds of disinfect- 
ing powders. The clinker, which is removed through the firing 
and stoking doors of the destructors is screened, ground, and 
mixed with hydraulic lime and cement, and is formed into paving 
blocks, flagging, tiles, bricks, and gravel for concrete filling in- 
stead of broken stone. At Liverpool some of the smaller munici- 
pal buildings are made altogether of this material, and the blocks 
and bricks used are suitable for many kinds of construction work, 
as they can be moulded in any form or made in any color. When 
properly seasoned these bricks are 50 per cent, stronger than the 
ordinary building brick, and are manufactured at far less cost. 

The best selected clinker from English destructors is so per- 
fectly vitrified that it is in demand for use on the filter beds of 
sewage works, and is found to perfectly supply the place of an 
equal volume of broken stone at much less than the cost of the 
latter. 

TABLE XXXIII. ANALYSIS OF DESTRUCTOR ASHES (GOODRICH); 
FROM REPORT OF MR. J. M. TAGGERT, BRADFORD, ENGLAND. 





SAMPLE 


Fine 


Medium 


Silicious matter 


61 .08 

21 . t^O 

7 .80 
Traces 
4.12 
5-5o 


67 . 10 
19.30 
6 .00 
Traces 
i. 80 
5-8o 


Iron and alluminia Oxide 


Carbonate of Lime . 


Magnesia 


Organic and Volatile Matter 
Moisture . . 




100 .00 


100 .OO 



THE MUNICIPAL WASTE OF AMERICAN TOWNS. 81 

The clinker from destructors burning mixed garbage, refuse 
and ashes, and operating at a temperature of 1,800 to 2,500, is 
a very different product from the ashes of American crematories 
burning garbage and refuse only, at a temperature of from 600 
to 1,500. 

No American form of crematory has yet succeeded in burning 
large quantities of mixed municipal waste (garbage refuse and 
ashes) with any reasonable success. It s not, indeed, attempted, 
nor is the form of furnace suitable to obtain and continue the 
higher temperatures reached in British practice. It is possible 
for American furnaces to attain high heat for brief periods, and 
under certain unusual conditions a clinker may be formed that is 
similar to the one described above, but this is the exception, not 
the rule. The American garbage crematories deal only with 
garbage and refuse under natural draft conditions, and do not 
attain the highest temperatures nor produce an ash that is com- 
pletely vitreous and free from organic matter. On the other hand, 
there is a value to American crematory ash that should be taken 
into account when the values of all waste materials are considered. 

ASHES FROM AMERICAN CREMATORS. 

Fourteen years ago the writer caused an analysis to be made 
of the ashes from the Engle Crematory in Des Moines, Iowa. 
This analysis gave the following proportions of fertilizing 
elements : 

Calcium carbonate 8 . 007 

Magnesium Phosphate 3-oio 

Calcium phosphate 66.855 

In transmitting the analysis Prof. Call, of Drake University, 
Iowa, after preliminary observations on the relative quantities of 
the constituents, says : 

"Now as to the usefulness of this ash ; I believe that the analysis 
shows this material to have value for fertilizing purposes. There 
is a relatively small amount of insoluable matter, and a large 
amount of matter which can be readily dissolved in water, and by 
the ordinary processes of nature made useful ... I have 
no hesitancy in saying that this sample shows a high grade of 
value." 

The opinion of Prof. Call has been confirmed and supplemented 
by the opinions of others, and the value of the ash is well estab- 



82 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 



aiqniosuj 


f w M oo 

M 00 00 00 


aptxQ 


to e* o) co 
<t ON ON t- 


um^ 


OO M M CO 


-XQ uinppQ 


00 N -<t 

CO N M t^ tO 

CO O M NO 't 


9 pix 
umipos 


IO IO 

NO NO 

10 . 10 - 


o n 


NO r^- OO CNI 

M t- t^ NO CO 

rt 00 00 00 M 


g umu m 


t^ NO NO NO 

Tf M f M O 


K 


NO M M <N, 

CO M ^J- M OO 
WO 10 <N 

CO M MM 


oaa^v 


t^ co Th co 

ON M OO NO 
CO *O IO IO 


j-8 

|| ui H 


10 (M 00 W 

t- 00 NO M 

M CO CN, 10 M 




CO M IO M NO 

00 O N O 00 
00 NO O NO 00 


9Jnq.STOJ\[ 


NO M O 1^- t^ 
00 t^ M 

Tf CO NO O M 


sgsXjBiiy 
jo jgquin^ 


10 co t CS O 

M ^" 


EXPERIMENTAL STATIONS 


Hatch Exp. Sta., Mass. Agr. Coll., Am- 
herst ; ashes from cremation of swill 
The same ashes from cremation of gar- 
bage 
New York Agricultural Exp. Sta., 
Geneva; ashes from cremation of 
garbage 
Iowa Agr. Exp. Sta., Des Moines; 
ashes from cremation of garbage. . . . 
Hatch Exp. Sta., Amherst; wood 
ashes 





ON NO 
<o ON NO 




-O rj- co 




00 ON 
UJ **> ^" 





ON NO 


m 


0) CO NO 


e\T 


00 M 

*O "-^ \C 


U. 


^ 


o 


ON 


I 


-O co 


DC 

111 


ON co 
to cs c* 

-0 <N 


Q. 




Q 




z 




D 




Q. 




Z 




Q 
LU 


t^ ON M 


h 


^ M 


D 









_J 









(0 




h 




Ul 


00 CO 




ts> t^ CO 


Q 
Ul 


-0 cs 

H 


DC 





Z 

ll 




IL 



h 


1 i : 


z 

UJ 


& : 


o 


c 


tc 

Ul 


G 

.2 '^ : 


d 


"rt ^5 


UJ 



c/2 ^ ; 


AVERA 


+* ' i * 

1 
t| 

X !p2 




^1^1 




OS rt o3 ^ 
ffi ffi 



THE MUNICIPAL WASTE OF AMERICAN TOWNS. 83 

ished. The preceeding table gives several anaylses of garbage 
ash, and for the purpose of comparison an analysis of wood-ash, 
a well-known commercial fertilizer, is added : 

Although there are no nitrates found in garbage ash there is a 
large amount of calcium oxide (lime) present in its superior form. 
When animals are burned with the garbage, the ash is rich in 
phosphate and lime. 

The value of ashes for land dressing does not depend altogether 
upon the amount of soluble phosphates and acids which by 
chemical analysis are shown to be present, but is due also to the 
fact that the ashes are an assistance or addition to the ground and 
act as filling for the interstices in loose and sandy soil, favoring the 
rise and retention of moisture, and on stiff clay soils rendering the 
texture pliable and easily worked. It also corrects acidity in some 
soils by the addition of alkaline properties. In the author's ex- 
perience the use of garbage ashes as a fertilizer has been attended 
with uniformly successful results. 

Household garbage burned under ordinary conditions leaves 10 
per cent, of residuum. From this is screened out the broken 
crockery, tins, glass, and all other foreign matter, leaving about 
5 per cent., or 100 pounds of ash per ton of garbage available for 
use. This is a conservative estimate, and is probably less than 
the average. 

For fertilizing purposes, garbage ashes must be kept separate 
from coal and refuse ashes, should be housed under cover, foreign 
matter screened out, and samples frequently analyzed to show 
the proportions of fertilizers present. The ash should include 
all bones even though partly calcined. 

ASHES OF REFUSE AND RUBBISH. 

When municipal dry refuse (rubbish) is burned in incinerators, 
the residuums include large amounts of iron in many forms, tin, 
glass, and other incombustibles. If these be previously removed, 
leaving the combustible matters, the percentage of ashes, which 
is fairly constant in amount, can be ascertained. There is always 
present a large per cent, of silica in various combinations, the 
quantity depending upon the cleanliness of the collection and the 
locality from whence the refuse comes. The following table gives 
an approximation of the ashes of refuse from all available data : 



84 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 



TABLE XXXV. ASHES FROM ONE TON OF MUNICIPAL REFUSE AND 

RUBBISH. 



PLACES 


Authority 


Percent- 
age 


Weights, 
Lbs. 


New York Utilization Station 
Boston 
New York 47th 
Street 


Craven .... 
Morse 

Stearns . . . 


i? 

15 

14 . c 


360 

300 

290 


New York Utilization Station Delan- 
cey Street 


Parsons 


14 O 


208 


Buffalo Utilization Station 


Morse 


10 ^ 


3QO 


New Brighton. Average of test for 
i year 


Fetherston. 


I 3 .8 


376 



The ashes from combustion of refuse in New York City were 
analyzed at the Lederle Laboratories as follows : 

Sample of ashes from West Forty-seventh Street incinerator : 

Moisture 2.12% 

Potassium carbonate 2 .65% 

Calcium phosphate i . 98% 

Alkaline earth carbonates, silicates, soda, oxides of iron and 

alumina, etc 68 .05% 

Organic and volatile matter (loss on ignition) 25 .20% 

100 .00% 
Sample of ashes from Delancey Street incinerator : 

Moisture 0.7 5% 

Nails and other metal 5 4&% 

Broken glass 4 5 " 

Bone phosphate 2.71% 

Potash . 0.46" 

Alkaline earth carbonates, silicates, soda, oxides of iron and 

alumina, etc. > 60 . 91 % 

Organic and volatile matter (loss on ignition) 25 .64% 

joo .00% 

STREET SWEEPINGS QUANTITIES AND VALUES. 

Street sweepings is the last constituent of municipal waste to be 
considered, and although usually not a part of waste disposal 
work, still is an item of the whole mass of waste from which some 
returns may be expected. 

In 1898 the General Government collected data in regard tc 
sweepings, from which the following is quoted :* 

*The fertilizing value of street sweepings, U. S. Agricultural Bulletin No. 55, 
H. W. Wiley and E. E. Ewell, Chemists. 



THE MUNICIPAL WASTE OF AMERICAN TOWNS. 85 

Of 354 cities to which inquiries were sent, 150 made no report, and of 
the 204 reporting, 70 had no method of utilization; 74 used them (street 
sweepings) for filling land, and 60 cities, or about 17 per cent, of the 
whole number, with a population of 10,000 to 100,000, used them for 
fertilization. For the cities reporting, the average quantity collected was 
168.9 tons for i ,000 population. Assuming this to be a true average, 
then, for all the cities of the United States the total amount would be 
three million tons. 

THE FERTILIZING VALUE OF SWEEPINGS. 

The value of sweepings for land dressing depends greatly upon 
the nature of the paving from which they are taken. It is practi- 
cally nothing when it comes from macadamized roads, and only 
approaches good stable manure from the well-kept, hand-swept 
streets of crowded cities. Sweepings are often mixed with much 
foreign matter, which lowers their value. There are few reports 
of the value of sweepings available. These are presented in the 
table XXXVI following. 

Street sweepings when dried average 50 per cent, of sand, 
powdered stone, abraided iron and other foreign matter, and 50 
per cent, of combustible organic matter. During continued fine 
weather the sweepings become finely divided and pulverized, and 
when taken up by the wind are a nuisance to the public and a 
positive injury to property. It is claimed that disease germs 
are communicated in this manner, and it is reported by physicians 
in the larger cities that the increase in catarrhal and kindred 
diseases during periods of dry, windy weather are noticeably above 
the normal percentage. 

In 1905 New York City separately collected the street sweepings 
and delivered them in bags at the dumps to the Long Island 
Railroad, which sent them to the farmers, charging only the cost 
of freight and handling. This experiment was not satisfactory, 
as the cost of the bags, which quickly rotted, and the freight 
charges, were more than the value of the material. There being no 
storage facilities, no disposal could be made in winter, and the 
attempt to utilize sweepings in this way was abandoned. They 
are now sent with ashes to fill land on Riker's Island. Though 
the approximate value of this waste is about $i a ton, only 
under exceptional conditions of cheap transportation can it be 
made to return a revenue. 

The government reports from farmers using sweepings are to 
the effect that their value is about two-thirds that of farmyard 



86 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

manure, giving best results when used as top dressing. The 
cost varies from 15 cents to $2 per ton, to $6 per carload. They 
contain a considerable amount of stones, cans, etc., that must be 
removed by the purchaser, and they should be well rotted before 
using. 

STABLE REFUSE. 

The waste from private stables is not generally considered as 
municipal waste. The view taken by most places is that this 
comes under the head of trade refuse or private waste with which 
the city has no concern. The waste from the city stables is com- 
monly removed with ashes and dumped, and the householders 
make private agreement for the removal of stable refuse. Stable 
refuse in New York City is removed by a private company for the 
payment of a fixed sum averaging about $i per load of 2,000 
pounds. This is sent by rail to country depots for distribution 
to farmers. 

The quantities, according to the data furnished by the great 
express companies, average about 30 to 32 pounds per horse for 
each 24 hours. The total quantities removed in New York cannot 
be stated, but the amounts are diminishing each year by reason 
of the adoption of self-propelled vehicles in place of horses. 

Stable manure, when the liquids are drained off and the horse- 
bedding is of straw, peat, wood shavings or saw-dust, is com- 
bustible with forced draft without other fuel. Several large ex- 
press companies burn their stable refuse under their steam boilers, 
and by adding a small quantity of slack coal, obtain power for 
electric lighting and workshop purposes. 

Some of the larger cities class manure as a municipal waste 
and in calling for tenders for incineration include stable manure 
in the general waste to be destroyed. In one city, the average 
quantity to be destroyed is nearly 40 tons daily, the manure 
weighing about 970 pounds per cubic yard, and is nearly 13 per 
cent of the total city waste collection. Undoubtedly the disposal 
of stable manure will be done by city agency in an increasing 
number of places wherever incinerating plants are installed, as 
the value of manure for steam-producing uses is more than 
equivalent to an equal volume of mixed city waste. In the opera- 
tion of the Westmount Destructor fresh stable manure is de- 



THE MUNICIPAL WASTE OF AMERICAN TOWNS. 



fH 


\O O O O "- 1 "^ 


CO ^ 

pq 


O ON O 10 ON \O 


^ 1 

8 $ 


00 


o 




N P-l 




O 13 




"Z, ^ U 


^" 


r 


-O 


* AS 


00 


S M 




g 


Kj H 2 


I 


. 00 ON 


II 


Tf O 

. . fO <r> 


| 


MM ro OO IO 


-M 


N 






cu 








II 





;-, 


t OO VJ * ^ 




^ 


.a u 


cs T 
ro . r- rr 


ffS 




0^ 




1 


llillJJ 


"tfl 03 




* " ; ! ! - I 


s 


ro - ^ r> M vo 




Bk 8 : : ; : 




& | : : 




M II : 




r? F 




w . | c 




^5 co.2 
3, w ^ "SjS 




g S3 8 - : S 55 fc 
- g-^a co-s : g 

^ S| |g | 
^^l^la^ll "S 

gclsfl^l 3 s 
IRi|lbP||! 

^^S^^MCW^W g 

III 11 1 









^ -i- 

"3 I 
$> > 




M'jOgO 


i 
co 


K 
tn 
D 


1 


AwOMHi 

980 Ibs. 


ui 


i M \ 


m 
m 

D 
DC 

Q 


W 


O 




1 5 


L WAST 


1 : : : 

3 '. '. '. '. 

a ... 

Err: : 

>> 


< 

UJ 
0) 

D 
Li. 


U 

O 


e 

s 


Amount 
i ,020 Ibs. 


UNICIPA 


S : :.: : 

^ '.'.'. 


UJ 

nc 

J 

< 




& 


<to 


"S. 

IL 

o 


* : : * 


O 
O 

UJ 

_l 
m 

** 






"B % 


VALUES 




ECOVER; 




"w 

0) 
_C 


1 I 
1 1 


IMATE 


%'.'.: : 


DC 

U. 







1 .0 

'O 4 

K 


PROX 


8 : : : : 

ej . . . 


(0 






1 


Q. 

< 


IO O d N 


D 
_J 
< 




a 


1 1 


UJ 
> 


^ \ i 


> 

m 


o 


e 

i 


-* & 


h 
< 




OXIMATt 


U 

I 

o 


p 




Amount 
600 Ibs. 


COMPAR 


J; ! 


. APPR 


1 

H 
Sg 




O 


J 


1 
X 


o-C*" fe 

li'ig 


> 








X 
X 




X 
X 
X 




"s 


"3 M 


UJ 

J 

CD 


: : : 


TABLE 




^ o 
cSJ 

2 d 


A mount 
Ibs. 


< 

h 


tn 

i i 

gi : :| ^ 






1 


^o 




c 



88 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 



stroyed with a greater rapidity than any kind of waste, with a 
proportional development of heat. 

APPROXIMATE COMMERCIAL VALUES OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

If garbage, refuse and rubbish, coal and clinker and other 
waste products of the city can be successfully dealt with by the 
contractors after being delivered to them in a separated condition, 
and if such work be remunerative to the contractors, why should 
not the town itself do its own work of waste disposal and recover 
at least a part of the profit it now allows others to make, applying 
this profit to the expense of the collection and disposal service? 

There are several reasons for the present contracting methods. 
It has long been the custom to allow this work to be done by 
contract, and it is often difficult to break through traditions and 
precedents, and the personal influence, political pull and actual 
graft that too often govern matters of this kind. But modern, 
sanitary and economical methods can be established if the town 
authorities are willing to investigate and to act upon their con- 
victions. 

MARKET QUOTATIONS FOR REFUSE. 





Per 100 Lbs. 


Per Ton 




Paper 7 grades. . . 
Rags 6 ... 
Bagging 4 
Carpets 3 
Twines 2 ... 
Rubber 


$0.25 to $0.80 
30 " -85 
.65 " i.oo 

.60 " .75 

.36 ;; .50 

3 " -5 


$5.00 to $16 
6.00 " 17 

13.00 " 20 
I2.0O " 15 

7.20 " 10 
6.00 " 10 


These are whole- 
sale prices for car- 
load lots. The 
retail prices for 
smaller quantities 
are 15% to 25% 








lower. 



The value of a ton of ashes in an unsorted condition is practi- 
cally nothing except for ground filling. A load (1,500 Ibs.) of 
this brings from 10 cents to 25 cents, according to the demand and 
cost of hauling. Although the actual values in coal, clinker and 
fine ash are there, they must be established by the separation and 
utilization of the several parts. (See Table XXXVII.) This can 
be done economically on a large scale only, with large volumes of 
ash to deal with, and with a market for the several portions. The 
coal in ashes will always be salable ; the clinker is coming more 
into use, and the fine ash is already being manufactured with lime 
and cement into building bricks of any desired color, possessing 



THE MUNICIPAL WASTE OF AMERICAN TOWNS. 



greater strength and density than ordinary brick, to which it is 
superior in every way. It is made in less than one-tenth the time 
of the ordinary brick, and is sold at no greater cost. This industry 
will undoubtedly be extended to include a wide variety of forms 
and shapes for building material in which ashes as a substitute for 
sand will be used in large quantities. 

The value of the refuse in. the above table is based upon the 
present market price of newspaper "commons," or the lowest 
class of printed matter sorted from city collections. 

VALUE OF GARBAGE TREATED BY REDUCTION PROCESSES. 

^ 

No statement of the value of American waste would be com- 
plete unless it included some estimates of the amounts returned 
by garbage when treated for the recovery of its commercially 
valuable constituents. 

There are three reduction processes by steam only, by naphtha, 
and by a combination of these two in one system. Although these 
three methods are fairly well known there are no complete and > 
accurate data obtainable from the companies employing them, * 
hence all estimates in regard to them must be made conservatively. 

The following table, compiled from official sources, is an 
analysis of the identical product of different processes in different 
localities : 

TABLE XXXIX. ANALYSIS OF GARBAGE TANKAGE. 



LOCALITIES PROCESS 


Nitro- 
gen 


Phos- 
phoric- 
Acid 


Potash 


Bone 
Phos- 
phate 

] 2 . 
12 . 


Lime 


New York City, Pierce Process 


3 4 
3-5 
37 
3- 
3 

2 .9 
2 .Q 

3-7 
2 9 

2 5 

2 . I 
I 6 4 
2.50 


3- 1 
3 -5 
3-9 

2.6 

1.6 

o 

3 '* 

6. 

!:, 

g'oS 
6 .92 


7 
i . 

".66 

i -15 
.6 
.6 

:. S 5 

^ 

I . 20 

5 
.64 


56 


Providence, Simonin Process 
Buffalo, Merz Process 


Philadelphia, Arnold Process 
Pittsburg, Flynn Process 
Paterson, Merz Process 


Bridgeport, Holthaus Process. 
Philadelphia (Terne) Maximum 
Minimum 
Baltimore, Arnold Process (Gascoyne) 
Penn. Experiment Station 
American Reduction Co., *Brooklyn . 
Hatch Experiment Station. Mass. . . . 

Average... 


2 . OO 


3 . in 


* 6 



*This analysis, made some ten years ago from samples submitted by a company 
not now operating, is included, although the sample probably contained a larger 
percentage of animal matter than is usually present. 






90 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

The value of garbage for commercial products lies chiefly in 
the amount of grease extracted. This is assumed to be 3 per 
cent., which equals 60 pounds from an average ton of garbage 
larger, perhaps, than is usually obtained. This grease is extracted 
from garbage by the process of boiling the garbage with steam 
in digestors, and .afterwards pressing out the grease and water, 
which are then separated ; or by using naphtha as a solvent, which 
is afterwards recovered from the grease. This grease is a dark 
brown, heavy oil containing many impurities and some moisture, 
and must be repeatedly refined before it is fit to be used. It is 
largest in amount in winter and least in summer. There is a con- 
stant market for the grease at prices which vary from 2^ cents 
to 3 cents per pound. Great quantities of it are sent abroad for 
use by soap manufacturers, and a considerable amount is bought 
here for the same purpose. 

Tankage is the solid part of the garbage that comes from the 
dryers after the extraction of the grease. It is mostly the fibrous 
skeletons of vegetable matter, with a small percentage of animal 
substance. The proportions vary according to the amount of 
water present in the original mass of material, and averages about 
400 pounds of tankage to each ton of garbage. 

The value of tankage depends largely upon the nitrogen present, 
obtained from animal substances, and the amount of which is 
determined by an analysis of samples, the whole being sold upon 
the guaranteed percentage of fertilizing elements present. The 
market is not constant, as at certain seasons the supply exceeds 
the demand, and tankage is frequently disposed of by being burned 
under the boilers of the plant in place of coal. When the grease 
has been extracted by naphtha, tankage is often highly inflamma- 
ble ; sometimes there is an occurrence of spontaneous combustion. 
Four or five plants have been destroyed from this cause, and 
many cases of fires are constantly reported from reduction works. 

The manufactured material does not readily lend itself to 
transportation to distant places because of its bulkiness in pro- 
portion to the weight. It quickly deteriorates in character, and 
must be marketed soon after production. As a fertilizer it is not 
applied in the tankage stage, but is used as a "filler' for super- 
phosphates or other ingredients for making a complete manure. 



THE MUNICIPAL WASTE OF AMERICAN TOWNS. 91 

ENGLISH METHOD OF UTILIZATION BY HAND SORTING. 

The method of utilization by sorting out salable artices from a 
mixed mass of "town refuse" brought together at one point has 
been severely condemned by several English authorities. The 
conditions attending the work at one station in London are thus 
reported to the London County Council by the medical officer and 
the engineer : 

"The process carried on in a London dust contractor's yard has 
not undergone much alteration since the following description by 
Dr. Ballard was written : 'On a load of dust being upset from the 
dust cart on the surface of the yard men and boys proceed to sort 
it. They are provided with a fork and an instrument called a 
drag, which has a short handle and three cast iron teeth set about 
three inches apart, and with these they fork and drag over the 
heap so as to separate from it obvious pieces of vegetable and 
animal refuse, bones, rags, paper, iron, crockery and glass. These 
are distributed, some into heaps, others into baskets ; the bones are 
put into a bin or heap by themselves for sale to bone-boilers. The 
rags and paper are also usualy set aside for sale ; the iron and old 
tins are always set aside for sale, and usually also the glass, while 
the broken crockery, brickbats, etc., etc., are laid in a heap to be 
used as material for making new roads.' ' 

These are practically the same conditions that apply to American 
dumps where we still allow the pawing over of ashes, refuse and 
rubbish, and where the situation is not unlike that described above. 
This practice is to be strongly condemned, and should be prohibited 
as unsanitary and in every way objectionable. 

AMERICAN METHODS AT UTILIZATION STATIONS. 

But these conditions do not apply to the refuse utilization 
stations that are established in large cities and operated under 
restrictions that compel cleanly work. True, there is dust, but it 
can be drawn off by proper ventilating apparatus, and there is 
dirt which is burned and not permitted to accumulate. All stages 
of disposal work are accompanied by these difficulties, which are 
unavoidable but which may be regulated and made less harmful 
and annoying by the employment of adequate means. 

In this method of utilization by sorting at central stations the 



92 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

daily collection of refuse, the burden of the system comes upon 
the householder, who must do the first sorting. If there is no 
separation in the first stage than there can be none thereafter that 
is complete and satisfactory. 

The householder, therefore, is the one that makes it possible for 
something to be saved, but he profits only in an indirect way. The 
separately collected garbage goes to a reduction company that 
agrees to accept paymeent from the city for its disposal upon con- 
dition that clean garbage is delivered to the company. The 
rubbish and dry refuse, in al cases cited except one (Buffalo), goes 
to a contracting company that benefits by the benevolent action of 
the housewife, who gives it clean paper to handle. The sole actual 
benefit that the householder receives is the removal of matter that 
has become embarrassing and with which he cannot deal alone. 
In places where there are no contractors and no municipal force 
to perform the service he must pay for its removal, out of his 
own pocket, from five to ten times the amount he would be assessed 
for the service on his property valuation if the town performed its 
work properly. 

GENERAL SUMMARY OF WASTE UTILIZATION METHODS. 

In this table (No. XXXVIII) are brought together the items of 
waste separately analyzed and classified in the previous tables, and 
it represents the theoretical commercial values which, although 
undoubtedly present in the waste, are in such combination with 
one another as to make it impossible to utilize them when collected 
in a mixed mass. But when separated into their classes at the 
houses there is no difficulty in providing treatment for the recovery 
of the commercially valuable of each class. This is done now by 
the separation of garbage for reduction, but the separation of ref- 
use for market, and by the use of a part of the ashes for concrete 
work and brick making. It is necessary only to carry this one step 
further and in providing for waste disposal add the equipment 
required by each class of material and deal with all the waste, 
instead of dividing it up among several opposing methods or 

/mong several different contractors. 
A return will always be available from the waste when it is 
properly treated by the best means. Coal will never be cheaper 
than it is now, and a partial supply from whatever source, even if 



THE MUNICIPAL WASTE OF AMERICAN TOWNS. 93 

of a poor quality, will always command a market. Clinkers and 
ashes have just been discovered to be of real worth, and we have 
only to note the many uses to which these unpromising materials 
are put abroad to see what may be done with the same things 
here. Paper stock is cash on demand, and nearly everything of a 
fibrous nature can be manufactured into one or another form of 
paper. The return to the earth of the waste of households in the 
form of fertilizers, of garbage concentrated into ash by fire or .x 
into tankage by mechanical processes, is an economical means of * 
dealing with large volumes of matter which returns a revenue, or 
profit, over all expenses. 

Bringing all the waste to one station and using each method 
best adopted to each material means economy in equipment and 
operation, as the residuum from one class of refuse will furnish 
power and heat for the treatment of the whole. 

Now that the real value of certain parts of discarded matter 
are better known and have a recognized standing in the world's 
markets, there may be expected a movement, which is indeed 
already begun, that will give the benefit of the economical treat- 
ment of waste products to the people, who are the ones chiefly 
concerned, and who should chiefly benefit by the wisely ad- 
ministered, economical and sanitary methods at the service of 
municipal authorities. 

EXAMPLES OF THE UTILIZATION OF WASTE MATERIALS. 

Frequent reference has been made by many writers to the 
methods and appliances used abroad for the recovery of some 
useful by-product of the municipal waste, and many valuable hints 
are to be had from the records of towns that have had longer 
experience in this line than most of our American cities. 

We have little to learn from the examples of Continental cities, 
except that some of their methods of careful collection and sys- 
tematic service might well be adopted, but in Great Britian there 
are many ways of dealing with waste matter, born of the press- 
ing necessity for economy and efficiency, that may well apply to 
our own needs. The quotation given in this chapter concerning 
the unsanitary method of sorting general refuse applies to the 
conditions of twenty years ago, when they were beginning the 
serious study of the question. Great advances have been made 



94 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

since those days by the use of mechanical devices for conveying, 
separating and utilizing the various parts of the town's refuse. 
All these are made possible by the use of steam power generated 
by the waste itself, and this steam power is the principal factor in 
the various methods and forms of utilization. But, aside from the 
value of the power developed in the larger English cities by the 
employment of powerful refuse destructors, and which is used for 
municipal lighting, traction, water and sewage pumping, etc., is 
the great field for the manufacture of certain forms of building 
material made from the clinker and ashes left after the destruction 
of the combustible part of the waste. 

We have practically the same kind of waste to deal with, and 
one that contains a larger proportion of valuable matters than 
that of any foreign community. The American people enjoy a 
plentiful supply of food, clothing and fuel easily and cheaply 
obtained, and are more wasteful in their habits of life than any 
other nation. The absence of economy in the disposal of all 
residue excites the wonder and astonishment of foreign observers. 
This habit of wastefulness," probably caused by exceptional abun- 
dance, is a national trait that cannot and need not be changed, but 
there is every opportunity to profit by the example of others who 
have advanced the art of economic waste disposal by a quarter of 
a century. 

DISPOSAL OF MIXED WASTE. 

There is but one opinion as to the means of sanitary disposal 
of municipal waste when it is collected in an unseparated mixed 
condition by the city's cart it should be destroyed by fire. The 
mass contains every class of waste intimately mingled by gathering 
from every source alternate layers of garbage, ashes, refuse, trade 
waste, street sweepings, leaves and park refuse, and sometimes 
manure also. The ashes of this mass furnish a temporary relief 
from the odors as the liquids are absorbed and the particles of 
animal and vegetable matter become coated with the fine ash, which 
arrests putrefaction for a short time. 

When these loads of mixed wastes are discharged at the dumps, 
in order to save the expense of covering, and to avoid the nuisance 
of flying papers, frequently the refuse is set on fire and may burn 
for days, sending out clouds of nauseating smoke. The suburbs 



THE MUNICIPAL WASTE OF AMERICAN TOWNS. 95 

of most towns, where there are no means of disposal except by 
dumping, are nearly always subjected to this nuisance. In one 
New England city the dump fire, after burning for days, was so 
offensive that the Fire Department was called in for the relief of 
adjoining householders. 

For the larger towns where separation is made there is less 
difficulty in disposal, for each class can be treated by itself, but 
for th6 smaller places where a mixed collection by private or con- 
tract service is made, the final disposition is the hardest problem 
that the town has to solve, and the most practical and sanitary 
solution is destruction by fire. 



PART II. 

THE DISPOSAL OF AMERICAN MUNICIPAL WASTE 
BY CREMATORIES AND INCINERATORS. 

CHAPTER V. 

METHODS OF WASTE DISPOSAL BY INCINERATION IN AMERICAN 

TOWNS. 

In attempting to collect and reduce to intelligible form the data 
existing on the subject of disposal of municipal waste in American 
towns in early stages, it has been very difficult to procure accurate 
and extended accounts that are of value as records. 

At the beginning of the work, in the years 1885 to 1890, the 
control was almost exclusively in charge of the local health 
officers of the cities. They first recognized the importance of the 
question, and being responsible for the public sanitation, were the 
first to advocate better methods of removal and disposal of those 
parts of the waste which were most offensive and dangerous to 
the public health. 

There was no system of concerted action. Each Health Officer 
treated the matter in his own way, always under the strong eco- 
nomical pressure of the City Council, which, as a rule, would only 
vote money to suppress an epidemic of disease, but could never 
be brought to recognize the wisdom of preventive measures. 

The question was taken up in 1887 by the largest sanitary society 
in the country The American Public Health Association (which 
afterwards included the Dominion of Canada and the Mexican and 
Cuban Republics), by the appointment of a Special Sanitary Com- 
mittee for the collection of data and publication of reports on the 
subject. For nearly twenty years the committee continued its 
reports, which, with the papers contributed by the members 
of the Association upon the special and local conditions of their 
cities, formed the only definite and accurate accounts of the work. 

In 1894 a special effort was made by Mr. Rudolph Hering, C.E., 
then Chairman of the Committee, to obtain data on the subject. 

96 



DISPOSAL BY CREMATORIES AND INCINERATORS. 97 

The replies to the circulars sent out contained much information, 
but it was so indefinite and irregular in arrangement, and so 
obscurely expressed that it was never reduced to tabulated 
form. The papers of the members in all parts of the country con- 
tained the best details and suggestions, and when made public were 
of great assistance to others. The Association continued its work 
through its committee up to 1904. 

Meantime the business side of the matter was being developed 
by companies and persons who brought forward many furnaces for 
destruction of waste by fire, and means and apparatus for treat- 
ment for recovery of the valuable parts of the waste. 

Still, the practical application of these means remained, as a 
rule, under the charge of the Health Officers. These gentlemen 
were not always fitted by experience in previous business and 
professional training to consider the detail of the best forms of 
construction and working of garbage crematories and reduction 
plants. Thus it happened that there were many failures both in 
methods and appliances, much time was lost and large sums of 
money wasted before the Boards of Health were willing to accept 
the conclusion that, in all the practical details of means, apparatus 
and application of inventions, this is an engineering question to be 
solved by men whose special training fits them for the work, and 
the responsibility that comes with it. 

Meanwhile, the reliable literature of the subject did not keep 
pace with the growth of the work. The builders of crematories 
at widely separated points were intent upon pushing their in- 
dividual ideas and their particular designs, each claiming his to be 
the best yet brought out, and paying little attention to what was 
happening elsewhere. 

There are many accounts of the operation of crematories, 
written mostly by those directly interested on behalf of the 
builders or the town authorities. Probably the largest number 
of these were drawn up by newspaper writers, who designed to 
give a record of the current news items for home consumption, 
sometimes for personal, political or financial reasons, to exploit 
the efforts of their local authorities, or the particular device in 
use, and these reports were often inaccurate and not always 
true. In the absence of correct returns, these items were put 
forth as authoritative accounts of the work, were used as an 



98 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

indorsement of the particular furnace elsewhere, and, being ac- 
cepted without investigation, perpetuated and multiplied the 
errors. While in many cases these accounts must be accepted as 
the only existing record, they must be taken with the utmost 
caution, until verified by other and more independent observers. 

The sharp competition of opposing interests developed mutual 
misrepresentation and recrimination. Contracts were obtained by 
personal and political favor, by influential pull, by manipulation 
and graft, with little regard to the interests of the city or town. 
Each place having adopted a system, the local authorities felt con- 
strained to endorse it to others. There was no standard for com- 
parison except these indefinite newspaper reports. But more than 
all else, there was no accurate system of trials or tests to deter- 
mine the initial efficiency of apparatus, and in most cases no sub- 
sequent official record of continuous operating results, tabulated 
for use. 

In this connection the great engineering journals have exercised 
a wise discretion and admitted to their columns the detailed 
description and illustrations of plants installed, accepting no re- 
sponsibility for their operation and refraining from comment upon 
the claims made for successful design or performance of any 
particular plant. This course has compelled accurate and better 
accounts, and it is to the columns of these journals that we must 
look for reliable details of construction and operation. 

This state of affairs continued for nearly seventeen years, 
from 1885 to I 9 2 > an d this whole period is marked by the succes- 
sive appearance of something like twenty-five or thirty different 
forms of apparatus and methods for the disposal of municipal 
garbage, for almost every one limited their constructions to the 
treatment of this item of waste. 

It was in the year 1902 that the first examination and report 
upon the operation of an American crematory was made by a 
competant engineer qualified by training and acquaintance with 
other incineration systems to report upon the merits and de- 
ficiencies of the particular one noted. 

The City Engineers of most places have not, as a rule, taken up 
the subject with intent to familiarize themselves with its details. 
Heretofore, they have not been anxious to offer suggestions, or 
perhaps they were not consulted by the Boards of Health or Com- 



DISPOSAL BY CREMATORIES AND INCINERATORS. 99 

mittees of Council who had the matter in hand. But whatever be 
the reason the Engineers of the country have shown but little 
interest in the matter and allowed it to "drag its slow tortuous 
length along" with little help from them. 

There are several notable exceptions to this where exhaustive 
studies were made and accurate reports submitted, and in some 
few cases the City Engineers have taken charge of and caused to 
be successfully operated crematory furnaces in their towns for 
continuous years. But within the last three years there has been 
a marked change in the engineering aspect of the subject. Six of 
the larger cities have appointed commissions or employed special 
engineering experts, and in one case the department controlling 
the collection and disposal of wastes has through its Chief En- 
gineer, made a thorough study and formulated an admirable 
report. The reports already made by these gentlemen have been 
drawn upon in the previous tables, and will be still further cited. 

FIRST GARBAGE CREMATORIES. 

Up to 1884 there was little or nothing known in this country 
of the methods of destroying offensive waste by fire. In England, 
a Fryer furnace had been built at Manchester in 1876, and this 
destructor, with some changes and modern attachments, is still 
operating. This furnace was followed by the "Beehive" and 
several others. The Sanitary Engineer and Weekly Journal 
(now the Engineering Record), of New York, in its issue of 
September, 1884, gave a brief account of these, with such illus- 
trations as were available, but little interest was shown in the 
matter, and no similar furnaces were built here until 1886. 

FIRST U. S. GOVERNMENT GARBAGE FURNACE. 
In December, 1884, Lieut. H. J. Reilly, U. S. A., at that time 
Post Quartermaster at Governor's Island, New York Harbor, 
addressed the Editor of the Sanitary Engineer, saying that he had 
a daily average of five cubic feet of garbage which he wished to 
cremate, and asked where he could find information as to the 
proper construction and size of a furnace for the purpose. In 
reply, the Editor referred to the previous issues of the Sanitary 
Engineer describing the "Fryer" destructor, the "carbonizer" at 
St. Pancras, London, the Leeds destructor, and the "Beehive" 
destructor at Burnley, England. 



ioo THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

In the August 13, 1885, issue of the Sanitary Engineer appeared 
the letter of Lieut. Reilly reporting the construction of a gar- 
bage furnace at Governor's Island, New York Harbor, as follows : 

Office Post Quartermaster, Governor's Island, X. Y. 

July 29, 1885. 

SIR: I enclose herewith a sketch to scale of the garbage furnace which 
is in use here, as it may interest your readers. 

The garbage, varying in daily quantity from ten to thirty cubic feet, 
used to be buried, but the small extent of good ground available for the 
purpose became so saturated that in the summer time especially the odor 
was distinctly perceptible, and not agreeable. For this reason it was finally 
decided to burn the garbage, and I made many unsuccessful attempts to 
get some information as to the proper construction of a furnace for the 
purpose. 

I finally appealed to you, and it was on information derived entirely 
from your valuable paper that the furnace now in successful operation 
was built. An experimental one, which gave excellent results, was first 
tried by obtaining an old brick oven so as to get something similar to 
"Fryer's Destructor" which was described in your paper. 

The one now in use consists essentially of a chamber 4x5x3 feet, lined 
with fire brick and divided into three spaces by two gratings, composed of 
34-inch round iron bars, with inch openings between them, and the neces- 
sary doors, grate bars (surface six square feet), and ashpit. The gratings 
are for the purpose of supporting the garbage, so the heat can get through 
and dry it and to prevent it from stopping the draft or putting out the 
fire. 

The operation was commenced by making a coal fire and putting the 
garbage on the right side to dry; the next day's garbage was put in on 
the left side and the dry garbage was raked over the fire. By putting 
garbage in on the left and right sides alternately dry garbage is supplied 
and the fire kept constantly burning. 

The chimney, owing to its location, had to be built fifty feet high, 
although it was intended originally to have it only thirty, which would 
have given ample draft. The total cost was about $350. There was a 
slight inoffensive odor from the chimney which is perceptible in certain 
conditions of the atmosphere ; it is very similar to that given off by burn- 
ing letter paper. No fuel of any kind other than the garbage is used or 
needed, unless the fire is allowed to burn out, when, of course, some 
fuel is necessary to start the new fire. One man has charge, and after 
putting in the day's garbage generally limits his attention to raking the 
dry garbage over the fire at noon and again at sunset. 

Very respectfully, 

H. J. RKILI.V. 

This form of furnace was afterwards built by the U. S. Govern- 
ment at many of the Army posts and depots, and continued in 
use up to 1894, when the last example was built by the author at 
Fort Totten, Willets Point, New York Harbor. The capacity of 
all is very small, rarely exceeding one ton daily. 

The same construction as that described bv Lieut. Reillv was 



DISPOSAL BY CREMATORIES AND INCINERATORS. 



101 



followed at Fort Totten, except that the grates for sustaining the 
garbage were made of steel railroad bars set in heavy cast-iron 
headers at the top and bottom. But the weakness of this form 
of grate bar exposed to the direct action of the fire made constant 
repairs necessary, and the absence of any device for consuming 
the gases that passed direct to the chimney was a fatal defect. 

As the first example of the "garbage cremator" in this country 
it did the duty for which it was required quite as successfully as 
some of its later, more complicated successors. This furnace at 
Governor's Island was removed in 1904, after nineteen years of 
continuous service, and replaced by a furnace of a different form 
of construction. 




FIG. 20. THE FIRST GARBAGE CREMATORY IN THE UNITED STATES, 
GOVERNOR'S ISLAND, 1885. 



THE FIRST MUNICIPAL GARBAGE FURNACE. 

Next following the Government garbage crematory built by 
Lieut. Reilly at Governor's Island, was that constructed by the 
Rider Company, at Allegheny City, Pa., in 1885. This appears 
to be the first one which engaged in the disposal of the garbage 
of a municipality. The cost of the plant was about $5,700, its 
capacity, 30 tons daily, it was operated by two men, and used the 
cheapest coal as fuel. The enclosing building was a cheap con- 
struction and the whole installation was largely in the nature of 
an experiment, although it continued in service some six or seven 
years. 



102 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

It was a plain brick rectagonal box, with one horizontal set 
of grates, the main firing chamber being divided by a heavy 
bridge wall, over which the flames passed from the front to the 
rear. It was charged through ten small openings on top, the 
waste falling on the grates in small conical piles. The front sec- 
tion was fired with slack coal, and the heat generated was suffi- 
cient for combustion in the second compartment. The ashes were 
removed through doors on the grate level. 

In the year following 1886 a Rider garbage cremator was 
built in Pittsburg, Pa., of the same general description as the 
one in Allegheny City. In this furnace, natural gas was the fuel 
employed, the work being carried on by four men. The arrange- 
ment of the plant was not convenient for receiving and charging 
the waste, and the expense of operating was very great. 

During 1889 an attempt was made to record the quantities of 
waste destroyed, reported at 23,400 cubic yards, equivalent to 
9,384 tons, an average of about 75 cubic yards per day. The cost 
was about 90 cents per ton. 

This furnace was not adopted by other cities, as the operation 
was found to be very expensive, and there were many complaints 
of nuisance from the chimney. 

The Pittsburg cremator was discontinued in 1901. 

THE WHEELING NIGHT-SOIL CREMATORY. 

In September, 1885, Dr. Baird, Health Officer of Wheeling, W. 
Va., appealed to the Sanitary Engineer for information on a 
night-soil furnace, and was responded to by a reference to the 
destructors used abroad, and to the Government cremator at 
Governor's Island. None of these suited the case, and the town 
authorities began a series of experiments in destroying night-soil 
by fire. At first the waste was mixed with coal slack and burned 
in gas retorts, which was too expensive ; later an old steel-heating 
furnace was used with better success. Finally the city, in 1886, 
contracted with Mr. M. V. Smith, of Pittsburg, to build a furnace 
of the Siemens regenerative plan, employed for obtaining high 
temperature in iron and steel mills. The capacity was to be sixty 
tons daily of garbage, night-soil and dead animals. The location 
was on a top of a hill, chosen probably for fear of offensive fumes. 



DISPOSAL BY CREMATORIES AND INCINERATORS. 103 

The furnace afterwards known as the Smith-Siemens crematory 
has been continuously in use for upwards of 21 years. Many 
repairs have been made, but the original design has been sub- 
stantially followed. Natural gas is the fuel. No available reports 
of costs of construction, repairs or operation can be had, and so 
far as known there are no pictures or cuts of the plant in ex- 
istence. 

It is understood the city is about to advertise for bids for a 
modern disposal plant. 

THE FIRST CANADIAN FURNACE. 

The first furnace in Canada was in the year 1885, built by Mr. 
Wm. Mann, for the disposal of night-soil in Montreal. 

This was a square brick chamber floored with grate bars, with 
ashpit below and at the back, a flue to the chimney in which was 
placed a secondary fire-box. Subsequently, in the following year 
a second furnace of the same general description was built in 
another part of the city. This one continued in use for about four 
year. Both these cremators were employed for night-soil in their 
first intention, though garbage in considerable quantities was 
burned in the later design. The large amount of fuel required for 
this work led to the discontinuance of these first cremators in 
1891. 

REPORTS UPON EARLY CREMATORIES. 

The earliest furnace that came into general use was the Engle 
cremator, the first example being in Des Moines, Iowa, in 1887. 
During the following years up to 1893 there were twenty-five 
Engle cremators designed and built for destroying garbage and 
night-soil, using various fuels. These furnaces were described 
and reports of operation were given by many local authorities, 
but no official report was had until Mr. William S. MacHarg, 
civil engineer, in charge of water and sewage disposal of the 
World's Columbian Exposition, Chicago, 1893, made a test of the 
two Engle cremators designed and built by the author, and con- 
tinuously used for the six months of the Exposition. From this 
report the following is condensed : 



IO4 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

THE ENGLE CREMATORS AT WORLD'S COLUMBIAN EXPOSITION, 

CHICAGO, 1893. 

Number of Cremators, two, capacity each 5o Tons 

Fuel, Crude Petroleum, fed by 'Air Compressor. 

Tons of garbage destroyed 5,009 

sewer sludge destroyed, 1,854, equivalent to tons 

of garbage destroyed 4,000 " 



Total destroyed during six months 9,009 

Gallons of oil consumed 169,839 gals. 

Labor, 3 shifts of 5 men and engineer eight hours each. 

Cost of disposal of garbage $o .67^ 

" sewage sludge 0.75! 




FIG. 21, 



THE ENGLE CREMATORS, COLUMBIAN EXPOSITION, 
CHICAGO, 1893. 



The operation of the cremators was entirely satisfactory. All 
the material was thoroughly burned without producing fumes or 
odor. The carcasses of many animals were also destroyed. 

These cremators were removed from the grounds at the close 
of the Exposition. The Engle Company was awarded the grand 
prize for its work in connection with this exhibit, and another 
prize for the Engle Fire Closet, for the destruction of night-soil, 
also employed in exposition work. 



DISPOSAL BY CREMATORIES AND INCINERATORS. 105 

THE ENGLE GARBAGE CREMATOR, RICHMOND, VA., 1893 TO 1908. 
The official reports of this city show the continuous disposal of 
garbage, market refuse, rubbish and the smaller animals for a 
period of fifteen years by the Engle Cremator, built under the 
superintendence of the author in 1893. The quantities of waste 
destroyed are estimated from the detailed yearly reports of loads 
of garbage, market refuse and miscellaneous matter consumed. 
This approximates 6,182 tons per annum of mixed garbage, refuse 
and animals, but includes no night-soil, street sweepings or ashes. 
The cost for operating expenses and repairs (which includes the 
addition of \en feet to the cremator, raising the brick stack twenty 
feet and complete relining of furnace), was 68 to 70 cents per 
ton of waste destroyed. At this time all the garbage is destroyed 
without difficulty, and the cremator seems likely to fulfill its pur- 
pose for some years to come. It has been under the charge of one 
Superintendent, Mr. W. P. Belton, for the past fourteen years. 

ENGLE GARBAGE CREMATOR, NORFOLK, VA. 
The following data are taken from the report of W. T. Brooke., 
City Engineer, 1893 to 1902. The year 1896, when the cremator 
was operated by the contractor, is omitted : 

Total loads mixed garbage and refuse, 58,793. 

Expenses of operation and maintenance: 

Labor $16,735.64 

Fuel (coal) 9,237.31 

Repairs and sundries 3,263.39 

Total expenses . $29,236.34 

The collection is done by city teams, the carts holding forty-one 
cubic feet and averaging over one ton to a load. Assuming the 
quantity to be 60,000 tons for the period, this would give fifty 
cents per ton as the cost of operating, including also maintenance. 
During this time two steel chimneys have been supplied, and the 
furnace has been completely relined once, besides usual repairs to 
grates, etc. 

For the past six years, 1902-1908 the quantity of waste has 
increased, because of nearly doubled population of the city; and 
the cremator is now too small for the work demanded. The 
cremator has been under the charge of one superintendent for 
twelve years. 

These cremators of the improved Engle type (Warner patent) 



io6 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

at Richmond and Norfolk, have, with the exception of the furnace 
at Wheeling, W. Va., probably been in continuous use longer than 
any of the American garbage furnaces. The first cost was small, 
about $7,500 each; the repairs and extensions have not changed 
the original designs, and there has been no serious complaint or 
stoppage on the score of nuisance, though both are located in close 
proximity to dwellings. In these two cities the growth of popula- 
tion and increase in quantities of garbage has made these furnaces 
too small for present demands. 

SMITH-SIEMENS CREMATOR, ATLANTIC CITY, N. J. 

In 1902 Mr. J. T. Fetherston, engineer in charge of Street 
Cleaning Service, Borough of Richmond, New York City, made 
a report upon the construction and operation of the Smith- 
Siemens garbage furnace at Atlantic City, N. J., built in 1894, 
which included some features of interest. The period reported 
was from September i, 1901, to September I, 1902. 

ANALYSIS OF GARBAGE, AUGUST, 1902. 

96 Ibs. vegetable and fine animal matter 64 per cent. 

19 meat, fish and bones 12 

12 oyster shells, crockery, tins, etc 8 

15 free water drawn off before analysis 10 

9 water lost in making analysis 6 

100 per cent. 

Tons of garbage burned yearly 9,663 tons 

Cost of labor and repairs $14,698 

Cost per ton of garbage burned $i . 52 

Total amount of coal used 1,728 tons 

Garbage burned per ton steam coal 5.6 

Tons of gas coal used 1,298 

Garbage burned per ton of gas coal' 7.4 

COST OF SERVICE FOR TWO YEARS, 1900-1902. 

Average cost for two years of garbage burned $i .48^ per ton 

Garbage burned per ton of coal (total) 2 years 6.15 tons 

Garbage burned per ton of gas coal (total) 2 years 7 .70 

1900 Total amount collected 10,477 tons; cost, $11,594 

1901 9.663 12,931 

Totals 20,142 tons; cost, $24.525 

Average cost of collection, $1.22 per ton. 

haul, 2 miles; cost per ton mile, 61 cents. 
Weight of garbage per cubic yard, 1,560 Ibs. 

This Smith-Siemens cremator was operated by producer-gas 
generated at the plant and employed only in this work. 



DISPOSAL BY CREMATORIES AND INCINERATORS. 107 

This disposal plant was greatly damaged in the great storm of 
October, 1903, and the following year was replaced by a reduc- 
tion system, operating under the Arnold process. 

REPORT ON DAVIS CREMATORY, TRENTON, N. J. (1899.) 
By RUDOLPH HERING, C.E., AUGUST 4-9, 1902* 

Garbage unmixed with ashes, in following proportions: 

Moisture 81 per cent. = 1,620 Ibs 

Garbage 15 = 300 

Refuse 4 = 80 " 

100 per cent. = 2,000 Ibs. 

Total garbage burned 188 tons 

Total coal for main and auxiliary fires J 3 7 

Total garbage burned per ton of coal 13-8 

Approximate average hours per day 14. o hours 

Equivalent number of days 24 hours 3.5 days 

Garbage burned per square foot of grate surface per day 

of 24 hours i, 080 Ibs. 

Garbage burned per square foot of grate surface per hour . 45 Ibs. 
Garbage burned per cell, 25 square feet, per day of 24 

hours 13 . 5 tons 

Percentage moisture in garbage 81 .0% 

Corresponding water evaporated daily 25.5 tons 

Coal required to evaporate this water on basis of 10 Ibs. 

water per Ib. coal 2.5 Ibs. 

Range of temperature of flue gases 600 to 1,000 Fah. 

Total daily capacity (24 hours) 53 . 7 tons 

The report does not include the cost of labor and fuel, but this 
was unofficially reported at about 62 cents per ton. 

This report of Mr. Rudolph Hering, an engineer, who had 
previously made investigations of this subject in Great Britain 
and Germany, was, as stated by Engineering News, "the first 
thoroughgoing engineering investigation of the operations of the 
American garbage crematories of which we have knowledge." 

It was undertaken under instructions of a Committee of the 
City Council "appointed to investigate the workings of the city 
crematory, against which numerous complaints have been made," 
and a brief synopsis of the subject matter and the conclusions 
reached will be of value. 

The garbage proper, or house refuse, is not of a combustible 
nature, containing much fruit and being almost saturated with 
water. The garbage from stores, markets, etc., is collected by 

"Engineering News, New York, Sept. u, 1902. 



io8 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

private parties, and much of it is very combustible, such as paper, 
rags, straw, wooden boxes, barrels, etc. 
The sources of the trouble were : 

(1) The odors arising from the garbage when collected by the city 
teams and delivered at the works. This may be abated by exercise of 
more care in loading and better regulations at the furnace. 

(2) Odors from ashes after burning. These arise from piles of ashes 
containing unburned animal and vegetable refuse and occur because of 
the furnaces not being competent to thoroughly consume the waste, and 
also because of the unskillfulness of the attendants. 

(3) The dust escaping from the chimney. This is due to the faulty 
design of plan or to improper manipulation of dampers, or both, and can 
be avoided by the construction of a dust chamber between the furnace and 
the stack, and by adding properly designed dampers. 

(4) Unburned particles escaping from the chimney. This is annoying 
because of their charry or greasy nature, and dangerous because of the 
burning particles setting fire to roofs. Unburned particles were noticed 
at a distance of one-quarter, one-third and one-half miles, varying from 
one-quarter to three-quarters of an inch square. The cause was incom- 
plete combustion and the remedy was a dust-collecting chamber, and 
dampers to be closed when charging. 

(5) Odors from the stack. This is usually the most serious trouble 
from garbage cremation and due largely to the design of the furnace. A 
discussion of this question involves (a) the character of the material 
delivered for cremation and (b) the essential parts of the furnace to 
obtain complete combustion. The burning of garbage depends upon the 
amount of combustible it contains and the amount of dust, chiefly of an 
incombustible nature, which obstructs the free access of air, and also the 
amount of moisture present. 

In European cities, where the garbage and rubbish is mixed with ashes, 
the combustible matters are sufficient in properly constructed furnaces to 
burn the whole without the addition of fuel. In our own country it has 
become the custom to separate the ashes and garbage, and the burning 
becomes a more difficult matter and can only be done by adding fuel. 

FUEL VALUE OF GARBAGE. 

The combustible value of garbage alone is thus stated : 

Taking 31 tons per day, with 81 per cent, of moisture, there would be 
present 21 tons of water. Assuming that all this water must be evaporated 
in the furnace, and taking 10 pounds of water evaporated by one pound of 
coal, it would require 2.4 tons of coal to drive off this water. Again, 
assuming that 20 per cent, of solid material in the garbage will yield 
roughly six tons of dry combustible material of about equivalent value of 
one-third that of coal, this is equal to 20 tons of coal, thus leaving an 
average of 0.4 tons of fuel which must be added daily to consume the 
garbage with its present quantity of moisture. 

The amount of coal actually used per day was 2.3 tons, and it is clear 
that the arrangement of the furnace or that the manner in which it is 
operated is not economical. The British cell destructor, with its sloping, 
drying hearth, the sloping fire grates with forced draft beneath, the com- 



DISPOSAL BY CREMATORIES AND INCINERATORS. . 109 

bustion chamber for mixing the gases before passing to the steam boiler 
and the dampers for regulating the draft, is more efficient than the 
American crematory, with its large areas of horizontal grate, resulting in 
piling up the garbage in heaps, requiring laborious and careful stoking to 
distribute the material, and compels a slower combustion of a larger 
surface of exposed matter and the need of some secondary fire for 
destroying odors. 

The brick chimney (120 feet high) of this crematory, collapsed 
on September 17, 1906, and in its fall damaged an adjoining 
house, injuring an inmate. A special committee of investigation, 
appointed by the City Council, reported October 2, 1906, that it 
"believed the wreck of the chimney was due to an explosion at the 
base of the stack." The chimney was replaced by one 150 feet 
high, of the radial brick construction, at a cost of $4,500. 

THACKERAY INCINERATOR, MONTREAL, CANADA. 1894. 

In 1894 Mr. Charles Thackeray built for Montreal, Canada, an 
incinerator of the English type, following closely the designs of 
the Fryer destructor at Manchester, England (1886), but with 
modifications and additions made by the inventor. The contract 
called for the disposal of 150 tons per day 24 hours at a cost 
not to exceed 90 cents per hour, equivalent to 14.4 cents per ton. 
The chimney is 180 feet high and 7 feet internal diameter. 
Natural draft is used. The approximate cost of the plant was 
$50,000. 

In 1902 Dr. E. Pelletier, Secretary, Superior Board of Health, 
Province of Quebec, made a report upon Refuse Disposal which 
includes some facts respecting the Thackeray Incinerator. * 

His analysis of Household Refuse is : 

In summer In winter 

Kitchen wastes 65 25 

Paper (combustibles) 15 10 

Tins, bottles, rags, etc 10 5 

Ashes ... 10 60 



100% 100% 

The collection is made in a mixed or unseparated state by the 
city's wagons. Only the refuse of the West District is burned ; 
that of the two other districts (East and Central) is tipped. The 
incinerator had the same number of cells as when constructed, but 

*Proceedings A. P. H. Assn., Vol. 28, 1901. 



1 10 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

had been somewhat simplified by the removal or non-use of steam 
jets and mechanical fans for forced draft, the steam boiler re- 
moved from the main flue, the lower horizontal flue being dis- 
continued, also the fourteen small supplementary cells, and the 
fume cremator at the base of the stack. There was added a 
screen or ash separator for removal of fine ash in winter season, 
as the large amount of fine particles interfered with the com- 
bustion of other matter. 

From personal inspection Dr. Pelletier found that the house- 
hold refuse of Montreal is auto-combustible during the summer, 
when the amount of ashes is 10 to 15 per cent. Mr. Dore, the 
Sanitary Engineer of the city, estimates the moisture of Montreal 
garbage and refuse to be 60 per cent. 

The cost of incineration at Montreal, as stated by Dr. Pelletier, 
follows : 

From figures furnished by the Department in charge, the quantity of 
household refuse during 1901 was 17,445 loads, equivalent to 13,659 tons, 
destroyed at a cost of 93^ cents per ton. However, this does not give an 
exact idea of the cost of incineration, either on account of interruptions 
in the running of the incinerator (repairs or an insufficient amount of 
garbage), the wages of the men continuing to run just the same, or for 
other reasons. It is now well established that the net cost for the in- 
cineration of a ton of garbage is 39 cents per ton (note). I did not on any 
of my visits detect any bad smell resulting from incineration, and every 
one I have spoken to about the matter has always answered that they never 
heard any complaints. 

NOTE. It is understood this is operating cost only, not including interest charges 
on capital cost or depreciation. In addition to the ash separator, a picking belt for 
recovery of marketable refuse is also employed, but the power is not obtained from 
the incinerator to operate the screen and conveyor. [Eo.] 

THACKERAY INCINERATOR, SAN FRANCISCO, CAL., 1897-8. 

Following the installation at Montreal, four years later, a 
private company, The Sanitary Reduction Company, of San 
Francisco, Cal., bought the rights to build a Trackeray incinerator 
and acquired from the city a franchise for the disposal of its 
wastes for the term of fifty years. 

This private company is the successor of two others organized 
for this work, and has encountered many difficulties in the pros- 
ecution of its work. The incinerating plant erected in 1897 con- 
tinued up to April, 1906, when it was partly destroyed by earth- 
quake. 



DISPOSAL BY CREMATORIES AND INCINERATORS. in 

From a report made to the Engineering News, May 17, 1900, 
the following facts are condensed : 

Number of cells 32 

Daily capacity, each 45 yards, or 20 tons 

Total rated capacity of plant 1,500 yards 

Equivalent in weight 600 tons 

Square feet grate surface per cell 96 sq. f t. 

Average quantity of charge per cell 15 yards 

Time required for combustion of charge 4 to 8 hours 

Average amount consumed per hour per square foot of grate . 17.3 Ibs. 

Average daily amount at time of report 650 yards 

Equivalent in weight 260 tons 

Cost of labor (23 men) per day $40.00 

Average cost operating per ton .15 

Approximate cost of plant $75,000.00 

Amount charged for incineration per yard .25 

THE WASTE COLLECTION OF SAN FRANCISCO. 

The collection of city's waste in San Francisco is made under 
the direction of a Scavengers' Association, which controls the 
entire service, making its own charge for collection from house- 
holds and delivering the refuse at the works for disposal, paying 
25 cents per cubic yard to the Reduction Company. The waste 
includes garbage, refuse and ashes mixed together, and is taken 
at the works just as it comes. 

These disposal works are the largest in this country, covering 
three sides of a square of 265 feet ; the buildings are of brick with 
steel corrugate roofing, and the tipping platforms and approaches 
wide and convenient. The chimney was the largest of its class on 
the Pacific coast, 262 feet high, 32 feet square at the base, with 
a central circular shaft of 210 feet and 14 feet in internal diameter. 

At the time of the earthquake the upper third of the chimney 
was broken off and in falling destroyed the flues connecting with 
the eastern battery of cells and so wrecked this set of cells as to 
put them out of use. 

These two Thackeray crematories are the only example of the 
English cell destructors yet built in this country. They followed 
in all main particulars the construction of the Fryer destructor, 
but neither made use of the "fume cremator" which was an essen- 
tial feature of the English construction. In some respects the 
work of these furnaces was an advance over the methods of the 
American crematories. There was no separation of the wastes, the 
mixed collection of garbage, ashes and refuse being received ; the 



ii2 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

high chimneys gave draught for combustion with small additional 
fuel, and the operating costs were low. 

Owing to the slow rate of combustion (about 17 Ibs. per sq. ft. 
of grate surface) the time required for disposal compelled the 
construction of a much larger plant than is now required for the 
same relative quantities. 

Because of the low temperatures neither plant can develop 
steam power for its own uses, much less for any other purpose. 
It is probable both these installations will, as have the Fryer de- 
structors abroad, be replaced by other more modern and efficient 
types. The city of San Francisco has passed an ordinance appro- 
priating one million dollars for the waste collection equipment 
and establishment of a modern destructor system for disposal. 

Montreal is proceeding on the same lines, and is about sub- 
stituting a more efficient destructor to develop steam power to be 
employed in electric lighting work. 

SUMMARY OF EARLY AMERICAN CONDITIONS. 

In attempting to gather data respecting the earliest American 
crematories, from which reliable reports can be had, it has been 
found very difficult to record anything except the briefest outline 
of the work. In the first twenty years after 1885, some twenty- 
five different sompanies and firms came forward with incinerating 
furnaces, warranted by the owners to destroy everything with no 
trouble to the towns and with a profit for themselves and their 
backers. The most extravagant claims were made, based upon 
patents as yet untried, reinforced by promises to perform feats 
that were opposed to all accepted natural laws of combustion. 
Naturally, when put to the test they failed, and in failing they 
brought discredit upon the whole subject of waste disposal by 
fire. 

The business of the few companies that had shown ability to 
do satisfactory work was hindered and obstructed by competitors, 
eager for contracts, but not at all anxious to make good, if it 
involved a loss to themselves, as it mostly did. The progress was 
slow, the returns small, the changes in companies many, and the 
general conditions both for towns and builders became unsatis- 
factory. 



DISPOSAL BY CREMATORIES AND INCINERATORS. 113 

All of the earlier forms of furnace constructions, with one ex- 
ception followed the type of furnace first made known by Andrew 
Engle in 1887. This was a long rectangular open interior furnace 
chamber,, floored with transverse bars of iron or fire brick. The 
main fire box was placed at the front end, with a secondary fire 
box at some point within the furnace or immediately before the 
chimney flue. The flames and heat from the primary fires passed 
over and under the waste, and were intercepted at some point by 
the secondary fire which completed the combustion. 

This was the type of what is known as the American crematory 
as distinguished from the English destructor form. 

The general conditions attending this type may be thus stated : 

All of the American garbage furnaces are designated as cremators, 
crematories or incinerators, following the descriptive titles used by the 
builders. 

Those that survived preliminary stages and can show a record of four or 
five years of successful use follow the same general form of construction, 
with minor differences of exterior walls of brick or steel plate, but with 
the same charging and stoking methods, and the same employment of a 
secondary fire. 

All without exception require fuel for primary combustion of the waste 
and secondary destruction of the gases. 

They were built for the disposal of garbage and light refuse and some- 
times included the larger animals and a small amount of night-soil. 

They did not dispose of ashes or street sweepings, nor did they deal 
with the general miscellaneous collection of mixed waste. 

They did not employ steam boilers in connection with the crematory, and 
could not guarantee steam power for any general service. 

The exceptions to these general principles apply only to the form of 
grates, which in one case are hollow iron tubes filled with water, and in 
another case the burning chamber, instead of being open from end to end, 
is divided into short cells by transverse partition walls. 



ii4 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 



s 

i 

s i 

a 8 

S u 

5 g 

a> ~ 

i : 

t *" 

~ ui 

e O 

" < 

1 C 

S 

I in 

o> O 

. < 

m 

i i 

u 

d I I 

2 



> 



W - 

if 

< i 
w 1 

o = 



i s 



I < 

" S 

a i 

s I 

K K 

5 

i ( 

* I 

I ? 



SB 



-1 

.W 



#si i * 

flji^Sji^ ^ . rt 

R R !!f-I o o t S 








M 

l't 



7:'S"35'^3'^'^sSfl5c;vS'^ ::> P<S> | uo<-4JJ2a<uSj' c 



-'j O o K O 



; o ^ 1 

S <S 



^ 



in O -0 

. . 



o ' 

n ^ " r~ t^ ' ' ' O> " 

"i to . to f* * . . . n . 



*. C 



5; ^> 4) > Q) ^ 4> 




DISPOSAL BY CREMATORIES AND INCINERATORS. 




G *" 

o^g SI 2 



-- 3* t 
i.s .^ * 

a 



d bb <g 

c c t, 

V& >; 

"8.8 1 

.Is j 8 . 

. ii ! # 

cj 3 JJ.S*5 " rt rt wS.2 C 0> 

-s T.*8** %i * uA 

rt -3 ^i-J y u w ^S.- -<' "" 

* * *i ^g.. 55 v2> 

ggMS- 



\O M \O 

3\ O O 
00 0>0 



> 

P 



I V ^ 

ilM 



88 



OO -OO -OOO -O -O 

OO -OO -O^OO -O -O 

. . ' . . M . 1 . ' . o ' 

tOo' ' O ci ' t* &tn ' O ' 'o* ' 

; ;<> M ! M . 




tube- 

A^ 



,cc<u<ucoT;ee i o <u c cjs^3 . 5 c-,t: w c c g 

,|PQPQ-g-gdSQ ssd gd1|. Sfll 1 8 8 g| | g 8 

w<<WWwPQ^><:Q^cflOi- : .WWQ(5wwOPQQ l -J>c5Si-55pQ 




Illl- 

3 OS b - 

PQf^ZSuO 



.O^So 

fifl 



1^ 



i 



100 t^OO O* O M 



n6 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 



II 



"J5 



.2 3 

l 

^1 

O-OB 

i- 



~ a 

i < 4* 

^ .3 

* 8> S 



o s32 



H "Ert 

{2 <#5 

33 ^ a 

2 '"3 

n3 do 

- 51-^ 



l 



a 

.T3 

M< 



iTi ^ 



t S-aS 



&sn *.. 



saJ 

Q^ 1S1 



:'^ .2 o 

Isi 5 



=3- 



ie 

,;c 




^^2 



1 





i ' G 

1*0 O'^ 



-OOOCOOOOOOOOXOOl 



DISPOSAL BY CREMATORIES AND INCINERATORS. 



117 





! 

6 

J 

3*;?* 

/??-; _: * +e ;< M - M .._ 

ftfiljfi 

|i fe CiST3 !i +-> O<+-> *-> 

II pg'IB.ss, s.H.B.a&B.g' : aB.g8,&s as/Bo &c.o 

faEn cQPQcofaQ^O OOOOMOPn OOfaOOOJgOOCQH COOfc 

<S rt.O oOOOO-O'O'OO--.'o--o'-O'''O 

C O*CNO\O*O*O\.O*-O*O*--O*'O*OH'*O\' .^O^ 

^ ^g ui ^,j-u-uou--oi^o--t>- 

H 

ui I 

T) 

I 

oooo-o-ooo-'O- o-o-ooo-ooooo o-no 

TT'TTrO -O -OOOO -w. O -O OOO -t^OOOO O -NOOO 

PP *-> o^o\O\mO't^O^O'-O' O-O OH)t**flV)O^f1'l O'WQC^ 

U " ' H N ' ' ' 

00 "> 1/5 ^ -(^vr- 

Q 

:::::: '^ocScSo ' : ; 6c3 : -600 

3 bbbb :^? :^bb Sb :^ : : : : icrbbbbcS ibt 1 :<3&& 
|||3 :2 ijSS * ** :g : :J : :*-*|*| : : ^||^ 

yilfi^iiMii n ;ii^lliiiiil^ 

QQQQ>QC^HQQ^^Qffi'&L3O^G<QQQQOSaQQO^)SQbbffi 

::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :"3 

sy,y;inNNjnyjn:Ni^!H^^ 

s>jl: 

2; ^' -e' : c/^ o, . -a . _r >. ;o: :=iu3 w~ _r ~ . ..- .z R c c . s*- 1 1* ( 

i 

g,g,aagimimiHlim 

IHIHMMMMIHMMMMMMMHlHHMMMHIHMHtHMHMMMMHMMl-l 

O I t^OO O\ O w N fO ^ lAvO I^OC O O w ts m TT i^\O ^00 Ov O HI N rr t i/)vC ~-00 O\ O w N 

^ i O O O M M ^ H I* X * tl *l *I'O **> * ^ O 9**> * ^ * ' 

I MHHHHHHMMHHMHHHMMHMI-IHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH j 




u8 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 




itC 



>> 

pi 



iinO O O O O 

H MVO O 1DTT 



1: 



yj^KlMSl^^yfeSflllllfla 

J v o 0v 0v0s ..-..A-*' ..-.-... illJ 





SBS -a. -Ji B '-'ot I '''"S.-S-"!'. c Ba bZit^S -3 X" 1 > 

||l| j 



^S3S 

2 CL.V, 



OOOOOOOOOOOO 



O OOOOOO 

o> aoooxM^ 



OOOOOO 



f*^ ^ i/^\o r^-OO Ov O ^- M ro ^t mo I^-OO ^vO^Wf)^ u^^O i^QO O* O H w *o ^t u^ 

5 5 ^ 5^. ^ S> ^ ^ I/; w w ^ u,t?, wo <o<e<o >o<o3<d t c t *> *. 



DISPOSAL BY CREMATORIES AND INCINERATORS. 



119 



f i 
1 11 1 

III! 5 

2||22222 ^28& 2 
aSSB,2121S,a ^a^ 

CZ^OOOOO 







. 



4, 

II "J 



:8ooo 

\r> 10 O O 



10 N t^ 



: :^8S> 

; \o <> o~ 



o o -oo 

. 0_ 0_ <* O^ o 



'o'c 



II 

fl 







rtrtCftow' O 1 ^ w CPU C O C '' C C 



>- N i"0 t tovO t^OO O> O M csi tr> ^ ir.vO t^OO Os O w M r^, n V) 
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 <M7sOOsONONO>OsOsOOOOOOOO 



I2O THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

THE CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE. 

In compiling this list (Table XL) it was the writer's purpose 
to place on record the complete series, in chronological order of 
construction, of the municipal garbage cremating furnaces built 
in the United States and Canada since 1885. The Dominion of 
Canada is included because of the almost simultaneous beginning 
of the work in the two countries in 1885, and also for the reason 
that two of the furnaces in use in the United States originated in 
Canada. There are also included the furnaces built by American 
constructors in five foreign countries Panama (Columbia), San 
Salvador, Cuba, Equador and Guatemala as a part of the Ameri- 
can constructive work in regular order. 

The list is restricted to municipal furnaces those employed 
either directly by the towns, or by private contractors in municipal 
disposal work and does not comprise the large number of instal- 
lations for the United States Government, or the still larger num- 
ber built for public institutions and private establishments. There 
are two exceptions to this Nos. I and 20 both the first of their 
respective types. 

The list also includes the crematories built at the three great 
world's expositions, Chicago, 1893; St. Louis, 1904, and James- 
town, 1907, but these were for temporary purposes, and not con- 
sidered as permanent municipal plants either by the authorities 
or the builders. 

Again, to preserve the chronological order of erection, those 
plants for the treatment and disposal of dry refuse are included, 
though all, with two exceptions Buffalo, N. Y., and Lowell, 
Mass. are owned and operated by private companies. In sev- 
eral cases where "no reports" can be secured, the furnaces are 
understood to be discontinued, and should be so accounted. In 
some others where the reports are not conclusive, they are be- 
lieved to be operating and noted accordingly. 

Number of Installations. The whole number of plants re- 
ported upon is 208, counting each as a separate installation, 
whether containing one or more furnaces. This includes some 
five plants of the same type, replaced for reasons of their own 
by the .same builders or designers, and also about six others now 
under construction or contracted for, which are yet to pass their 



DISPOSAL BY CREMATORIES AND INCINERATORS. 121 

final trials for acceptance, but are here classed as operating. 
Those noted as experimental are also included. Several of 
these were large and very costly structures, and as all were in- 
tended for municipal service, they should, with justice, be com- 
prised in this list. 

Number of Furnaces or Cells. This is governed by the plan 
of construction. In the so-called American plan with one large 
receiving chamber, they are frequently built in pairs, one on each 
side of a central stack. The cell construction allows an indefinite 
number, contiguous to each other, and connected with a common 
chimney. Hence the increase in the number of separate furnaces 
over the number of plants or installations. 

Years of Installation and the Builders. It has been stated that 
the first municipal furnace for waste disposal was that at Wheel- 
ing, W. Va., but this is probably not the case. It appears that 
the next after Lieut. Reilly's first construction for the United 
States Government at Governor's Island was that of L. P. Rider 
at Allegheny, Pa., and following this was the Walliam Mann 
furnace for night-soil at Montreal, Canada, both of which pre- 
ceded Wheeling, W. Va. All were in the same year, and it is only 
a question of the month of construction of the first four installa- 
tions. Andrew Engle's first experimental furnace for night-soil 
was in the same year, but his first garbage municipal furnace at 
Des Moines, Iowa, came two years later. In the years 1889 to 
1894, many crematories were built by the Engle Sanitary and 
Cremation Company, but not until the plan of the furnace was 
changed and more durable material used in 1891 did it take the 
lead. 

In 1892-93-94 many other builders came forward, and shortly 
after the World's Fair in 1893 several large plants were built; 
the Anderson and Heavey at Chicago, 111. ; the Vivarttas and 
Smith-Siemens at Philadelphia, Pa., the latter at Atlantic City, 
N. J., and Washington, D. C, and the Thackeray at Montreal. 
Of these, the Thackeray only has survived, the others being re- 
placed by reduction processes. 

The Dixon Crematory Company, after its change in plan of 
construction and personnel of its organization in 1894, acquired 
a firm foothold in the field which has never been relinquished, 



122 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

and has now the longest list of installations to its credit, the great- 
est number being in towns and cities of the third and fourth class 
in population. 

From 1895 to 1899 six new types of furnaces were brought 
out, but none of these succeeded in their first attempt, one only 
surviving for future work after a radical change in its form of 
construction. 

The years 1899 to 1903 were the period of greatest activity, 
nearly sixty installations being made of twelve different types, 
seven of which proved unsatisfactory and did not continue. Near- 
ly all the plants erected were of small capacity, two only being of 
one hundred tons. In this period the first refuse disposal stations 
were built, as well as the greatest number of installations for the 
United States Government and for institutions. 

During the last two years three new installations of new patents 
have been built. These are the Heenan & Froude at Vancouver, 
B. C., and New Brighton, N. Y.; the Meldrum destructors at 
Seattle, and Schenectady under contract, and the incinerator of 
the Public Service Co. at Cambridge, Mass. This last is, with 
some changes, the same as installed at East New York for dry 
refuse. The Bennett Crematory at Wilkes-Barre is the same as 
previously built at Elmira, N. Y. 

The installations of the older companies are fewer in number 
than in previous years, and with less rated capacity, except in 
one notable Canadian instance, which is still unaccepted by the 
city after prolonged efforts on the part of the company to meet 
the requirements of the contract. 

Locations Indicated in the Table cover the widest possible 
range of territory, from the northern limit of population to the 
tropical countries of the South, and the whole width of the con- 
tinent frm the Atlantic to the Pacific oceans, and in five foreign 
countries. 

PATENTS ISSUED BY UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT. 

The patents for apparatus to burn wet fuels began with No. 
383, reissued August 15, 1856, and this was followed by a long 
series of inventions to burn bagasse, mill waste, tan bark, stumps, 
and many forms of combustible refuse. The first patent recorded 




DISPOSAL BY CREMATORIES AND INCINERATORS. 123 

for cremating garbage was that of H. R. Foote, Stamford, Conn., 
January 21, 1879, No. 21,203. Mr. Foote's claims included 
nearly all of the ideas that were afterwards made the subject 
of separate inventions by others, but, as a whole, his scheme 
was in many ways quite impracticable. The rotary cylinder form 
of furnace was one of the earliest types, but, like most of the 
first devices, was too elaborate and complex to come into use. The 
first inventors tried to do too much, and did not clearly under- 
stand the character of the material to be destroyed. 

The list of patents issued in this country from 1885 up to date 
includes over 160 for garbage cremating furnaces alone. Besides 
these are some 75 others for methods and processes for treating, 
converting, manipulating, and manufacturing municipal waste 
matter, and about 25 smaller devices for household use in con- 
nection with kitchen stoves, and for disposal of night-soil from 
isolated dwellings. 

These inventors display great ingenuity and skill in their theo- 
retical apparatus, but a lamentable lack of practical knowledge of 
the complex and conflicting character of the waste to be dealt 
with. The patents enumerated in the table are the ones that 
have undergone a practical trial under working conditions, and 
of these only a limited number have stood the test of con- 
tinuously successful service. 

Cost of Construction. The prices given as the costs for in- 
stallation are gathered from the published reports when bids are 
asked for or accepted by the towns. There is no way of determ- 
ining whether they include a complete installation of building, 
chimney and furnace, with all driveways, etc., or are only con- 
fined to the furnace and chimney. As a rule the towns usually 
buy a complete plant, but sometimes have separate contracts for 
buildings, or, if in conjunction with other works, the furnace 
is only a part of a general contract. 

There is no standard for comparison of costs of construction 
by the rated capacity of the plant that can be assumed to be 
accurate, nor is there any uniformity in the prices of the same 
construction by the same builders at different places, where the 
conditions are similar. It is true the expense is often influenced 
by difficulties in site, or local cost of freight, material, and labor, 



124 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

but this does not account for the wide variation in many cases 
which are substantially the same in all important features. 

Operating Cost. An attempt has been made to ascertain the 
operating cost for fuel and labor per ton of garbage destroyed 
at these plants, but this has been given up as impracticable. The 
reports obtained were conflicting and contradictory, tending only 
to mislead any seeking accurate detail. For lack of a common 
standard of measurement, there was no starting point to work 
from. Until there is some system brought into use for measur- 
ing and tabulating returns and reports from operating plants, 
with the items of quantities, time, fuel, labor, maintenance and 
capital charges, continued over at least one year's period, there 
cannot be any definite and serviceable details to record. 

Capacity of Furnaces -The crematories were at first rated by 
the cubic yard of material consumed in one day, a day being 12 
hours and the cubic yard used because it could be easily com- 
puted by taking the measurement of collection carts. Later it 
was necessary to provide for continuous service, and the capacity 
is rated by the tons to be destroyed in 24 hours, and this is com- 
monly taken as the standard, but unless there is an actual weigh- 
ing of the waste in cases where accuracy is required, there is 
usually little reliance to be placed on reported figures of capacity. 

Discontinued Installations. This column indicates the years 
when the plants ceased to be active factors in waste disposal 
work, and were discontinued, abandoned, or replaced by others. 

Taking the whole number reported, 208, and deducting those 
previously noted as not to be counted as municipal garbage de- 
stroying stations, 20 in all, there are remaining 188 installations 
built in American and Canadian towns in the past twenty-three 
years. Of this number more than one-half, about 108 in all, are 
permanently discontinued, leaving 80 still in use, including those 
built or under contract for the year 1908. 

In some cases these have been replaced by other furnaces that 
are still operating ; in several instances they were retired in favor 
of reduction processes, and in a very few waste disposal by cre- 
mation has been abandoned and the town has reverted to its 
former methods of tipping or else feeding to swine. The reasons 



DISPOSAL BY CREMATORIES AND INCINERATORS. 125 

for these repeated failures in this department of municipal work 
need not be discussed here, but will be reviewed later. 

Explanatory Notes. These must be very brief in so condensed 
a table as the following, and but little in this line has been re- 
corded. The division and classification of the various types and 
constructions will also be attempted later. 

This record, made up from statistics gathered in years past, 
is necessarily incomplete in some details, but it shows in a com- 
prehensive way the work of the last twenty-three years in dis- 
posal of municipal waste by methods of destruction by fire in 
towns on the North American continent. 

Thus the list represents the achievements of some ten builders 
whose furnaces to the number of two, or more, have continued in 
service and the entrance in the past two years of five others who 
are just beginning construction in this line. There remains some 
thirty other builders whose furnaces have been permanently dis- 
continued. 

GARBAGE FURNACES INSTALLED FOR THE UNITED STATES GOV- 
ERNMENT SINCE 1885. TABLE XLI. 

The first employment of Government furnaces devoted ex- 
clusively to the disposal of offensive matter seems to have been 
in the garrisons of the British Army. An American physician, 
Dr. Kilvington, while Health Commissioner of Minneapolis, in a 
paper read before the American Public Health Association at Mil- 
waukee in 1888, described a garbage furnace seen by him at Gib- 
raltar in 1865, devoted exclusively to the destruction of waste 
matters. This was the simplest form of a brick oven floored 
with fire-bars, having an ash pit beneath, and connected to a short 
brick chimney, the refuse being charged through the doors in 
front. This was perhaps the first instance of the ''hand-shovel- 
fed" destructor of the British type, which has since followed this 
same method of charging. 

The American Army posts found the same need of sanitary dis- 
posal of waste matters, and in 1885 the first American garbage 
furnace was built at Governor's Island, New York Harbor, by 
Lieutenant H. J. Reilly, as described and illustrated in the pre- 
ceding chapter. 



126 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 



_ O o_: OO'OOO OOOOOtubflO^OOO O O O O O O 

2* w 2* 2 2* 2 1 * <* o <* e q of% o* '"'S a * * ^ ^ 2 1 

C 60-rt B 99 5 9 M 00 4 M 9 W bf Cic'H 'SMcMMMcMMMMbiiMCiMtititiaiMMti^ 

E c--S cc-5cccccccc c^^ c.5ccc-Bccccccccccqccccg 

S3S'23ta : y3tS-55-3-^ a^S'Sts^s^-S-S'SvS'S^-a-S'a-S'S^* " 

O eS OO c8rt O cSrtrtrtrtrtnJcS rt -S.S oJo rtrtrt O rtrtrtrtrtrt 2 rtrtnJrtrtrtrtrt 4> 

j^Ja^aaas.^^a^^a.^B.^aaaas.aaaaas.aaas.'S 

OOHBOOQOOOOOOOOOS5J5OSOOOSOOOOOOPOOOOOOOOP 



111 



68860608808088 



6668 



O O >0 
O >nl^ 
t^ O O 



O O r O HI O O \O O O 



r O 
w O 



O O N 
J^ O N . 




^ ... -o . -H ...... 

i-a'l : i iJiii^^ ; i 






- w 00 Co COrjO C C CO C q C 




oo o o 

ocooooc 



00 M M N N 



t-OO 00 M N 



DISPOSAL BY CREMATORIES AND INCINERATORS. 127 

This furnace, known as the "Government Garbage Crematory," 
was installed at many stations of the Army, but has now been 
abandoned at nearly all, the surviving examples being at Ft. 
Sheridan, near Chicago, Forts Wadsworth and Totten, New York 
Harbor, and at one or two of the smaller Army Depots. 

The first departure from the Government type was made by 
Col. W. Jacobs, then A. A. Q. M., U. S. A., at McPherson Bar- 
racks, Atlanta, Ga., who caused to be built in 1892 an Engle 
garbage cremator of a special design, under the superintendence 
of the author. In this cremator (which was the distinctive term 
given to all the early Engle constructions), a radical change in 
form of construction from the original Engle patents was made, 
which was afterwards secured by new patents and became the 
regular type of Engle furnace. This first Government cremator at 
Atlanta is still in use, and in the sixteen years of its service has 
required less than $50 for repairs. 

First Furnace for Navy Yards. The first cremator for our 
naval service was also an Engle, built at the Brooklyn Yard 4 in 
1895 from the designs of the author. It was removed in 1904, 
as the site was included in the new dry dock location, and was 
replaced in 1905 by a Morse-Boulger destructor. 

These furnaces were followed by others at the various army 
posts and naval stations, and are becoming a recognized part of 
the equipment for the disposal of waste at all the Government 
reservations, including the military camps and the equipment de- 
pots of the Panama Canal Zone. 

Construction and Capacity of the Furnaces. Up to 1902 the 
design of the house and furnace and the capacity was left to 
the judgment of the builders who submitted proposals, but 
at League Island (Phila., 1902), the Government specifications 
first defined the required combustion per square foot of grate, and 
the specified quantity of fuel to be burned per ton of garbage de- 
stroyed. The present specifications are usually for the destruc- 
tion of eight to twelve tons of garbage, containing the average 
quantity of moisture (65 to 72 per cent.) in a period of from six 
to ten hours, with the consumption of a guaranteed amount of 
coal per ton of waste consumed. This is practically one-half the 
actual capacity of the furnace, the maximum being reached only 



128 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

when the stations are crowded with the ships of a great squadron, 
at the army posts contain a large number of troops for a limited 
period. 

Since the contracts usually go to the lowest bidders, the house 
construction at many of the army posts is of the cheapest char- 
acter, not in harmony with the other permanent buildings of the 
post. The disposal stations at the Navy Yards of brick construc- 
tion are more sightly and better suited to the purpose required. 

The contract prices vary widely, being controlled by the dif- 
ficulties of foundation, the local cost of material, the accessibility 
of the station, and consequent cost of freight and labor. As a 
rule the contract includes the covering houses and approaches, 
with furnace and chimney and all apparatus for operating. 

After erection there have been thorough tests or trials of the 
furnaces, and when accepted they have been operated under over- 
sight of engineers in charge of government work, or of those in 
control of the machine equipment of the institutions. 

Government furnaces cover a limited period., only from 1900 
to date. Once established, however, their use has been almost 
without failure, removals being for reasons other than those of 
furnace construction or performance. But it must be held in 
mind that these government disposal plants are not called upon 
to do their work for long daily periods under exacting conditions ; 
and also that they have a reserve capacity of one-half of their 
maximum rating, all of which tends to preserve the construction. 
As government officers do not report quantities destroyed or the 
cost of fuel, labor, or repairs, there is no basis for comparison 
between the several types of furnaces at any point except the 
cost of the installation. 

THE FURNACES FOR INSTITUTIONS AND BUSINESS ESTABLISH- 
MENTS. TABLE XLII. 

The need for a sanitary and convenient way for disposal of 
waste matters has always been recognized by those in charge of 
institutions devoted to the prevention and mitigation of human 
suffering, the care of the feeble and infirm, and the control of 
those mentally or criminally unable to care for themselves. These 
hospitals, asylums, sanitaria, and prisons have always presented 



DISPOSAL BY CREMATORIES AND INCINERATORS. 



129 



II 



K , 

I! 



:| 



:fc : 



ill| 

* " r*JS 

>'|SS 

: _-2~*<? 



21; 



f: 

l! 



irfrfJjK&G'ft : : : : .: 

5 ei^a a 5 .-55 g P 2 " 

ill-SoJesJ : ; : : : ^ rt - 
ilsiiiau : : : ' ;|l 



<S o 



* <^ J<j *^ M Q^rt 

! i 



o o 

: >,>. 
ill 

' 



1 1 



illij 



.r :J . 



m 



siij 



Ml 



If 
II 






* 



., 
QW 



i 

81== 
o^ 



u 

S^^SvovaaovaiSooooooooooooooo 5 ??? 
>< ', ooooococoooooooooooo O k 9tOe9>O l >OtOt4ltOtS<Sjh9i 



130 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 



(0 

z 
o 

h 

D 
h 

h 
CO 

z 
111 

> 

DC 
H 

Q 
Z 

s! 



: : 



otic o 

a Maffi 



I 



**?. 



;+j 3 
' 1/2+3 
: S 



; 1 il 1 

:S :cS : 



- 1 : > 1*3 



:33 



$ 

:.Q C 

:^^ 



: : :jf 

:3 :s : 



6 :^ 



l| 

ill : : i 

:|| o > 



affi3^w 
ab. e 



c 



w'-sc 

>,wTlH 



affe . 

ISB 



i 

S 

ffiw 

11 
fe^, 

ow 



M|&j 



i rf 

; :.s 

I 

ill 

0,5 

;si 

CJW 

: 
:aa 
"coeo 



ycb' lj '" CO^C 

rojiiajzs l^tls 
:d !S 5 (S Ls --^-2 ^ s s & 

rijdri'O'vHJ 

ti 5;? o.rt S>H^;'->^*TI^ 




iKKSOwSCQwo? i^-X w w 



I 



rt 

8 

00 







DISPOSAL BY CREMATORIES AND INCINERATORS. 131 

the problem of dealing with waste in a larger volume than would 
be produced by the same number of persons under ordinary 
conditions of life, and are often at a serious disadvantage as com- 
pared with the means of disposal offered by the usual municipal 
agencies, the use of which they are in most cases debarred from 
enjoying. Commonly this institutional waste is burned under 
the boilers and heaters, always to the detriment of the boilers 
and the cause of complaints from engineers and firemen, whose 
regular work is interfered with. Certain kinds of hospital, 
medical school and laboratory refuse cannot be disposed of in this 
way, but must be removed, often at great expense. 

Again, the accumulation of a large volume of refuse, inevitable 
in large business establishments, becomes troublesome, and the 
same difficulty arises in hotels and other places where people are 
brought together for special reasons for short lengths of time. 
As a rule the towns do not provide for the removal of institu- 
tional or trade waste, and the burden is on those in charge of the 
buildings. 

Hence the development of destruction methods for institutions 
and business houses by incineration in properly constructed fur- 
naces has been far more rapid, more satisfactory and more sani- 
tary than the development of disposal by municipal agencies. 

Institutional Crematories In Table XLII, are brought together 
the American installation of garbage and refuse cremating fur- 
naces other than those for municipal and government use. They 
comprise a large variety of forms and methods for disposal 
by incineration that are not familiarly known. 

First Laboratory Furnace. In 1886 Dr. John S. Billings, the 
well-known sanitarian, then connected with Johns Hopkins Uni- 
versity, of Baltimore, designed a furnace for the destruction of 
small dead animals, for use in connection with the work of the 
Pathological Laboratory at the University. This was a small fire- 
box built alongside the main chimney of the building in the labora- 
tory room, having an inclined hearth or small chamber at the left 
side, with a door for receiving the bodies, and above, a second 
inclined hearth, with door, which leads to a second fire-box be- 
low the fire-bars. 

The principal fire below consumes the bodies placed on the two 



132 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

inclined hearths, the fumes and products of combustion* .passing 
through the upper fire-box are consumed or deodorized before 
being discharged into the chimney. 

This is believed to be the first laboratory furnace brought into 
use, and is still in service, but limited to the disposal of very small 
animals, and the debris of bacteriological investigations that must 
be burned. 

First Municipal Institutional Furnaces. Beginning with the 
Engle cremator, built by the author in 1889, at the disinfecting 
station, East Sixteenth street, New York City, there followed a 
long series of installations for the great hospitals in New York, 
Brooklyn, Boston, and Philadelphia, and many smaller places, 
built mostly by one concern. 

This first furnace in New York (see table XL) is a striking in- 
stance of the value of such an apparatus in times of great emerg- 
ency, as when the health of the city is menaced. During the 
typhus fever epidemic of some ten years ago for weeks together 
there were burned in this furnace many thousands of infected 
articles, mattresses, bedding, clothing, furniture, etc., and in the 
eighteen continuous years of its service several millions of in- 
fected pieces have been destroyed with rapidity and perfect sani- 
tary protection from contagion. 

Taken in connection with the steam and formaldehyde dis- 
infection apparatus installed by the author in the adjoining build- 
ing it is one of the chief agencies in the city for sanitary protec- 
tion, and the largest of its kind in the world. 

New York City and Brooklyn have four installations at the 
various groups of institutions, and three others in the largest 
hospitals under municipal control. Boston has four furnaces in 
different departments of the great City Hospital. Chicago has 
a large equipment at the Cook County institutions, and Jersey 
City a large crematory at the Hudson County institutions. Many 
of the larger cities and towns are still without this most neces- 
sary appliance for the efficient disposition of dangerous forms 
of waste. It would seem that if there is any place where such a 
device is useful it is certainly at the stations and hospitals where 
the worst forms of infectious and contagious diseases are received 
and treated. Instances are on record where the employees of the 



DISPOSAL BY CREMATORIES AND INCINERATORS. 133 

street cleaning service have contracted disease resulting in death 
from exposure to infected matter during its removal by the city 
carts from the public institutions. 

The First Hospital Installation was that of the New York Hos- 
pital in West I7th Street, in 1891. This is a special design by the 
author after the Engle pattern and the first steel case garbage 
furnace construction built in this country. 

This was followed by others at St. Luke's, Bellevue, Lying-in, 
Mt. Sinai, German, St. Francis hospitals, and several smaller ones. 
Philadelphia has furnaces at the Pennsylvania, Samaritan, Episco- 
pal, Jefferson and several of the smaller hospitals, and other towns 
have followed these examples. 

The need of this help to efficient sanitation is universally recogr 
nized by the officers in charge, but there is sometimes difficulty 
in finding convenient room in the older institutions, and often a 
lack of funds for construction. The latest modern hospitals 
usually provide space for destructor furnaces, though not all 
build them. There are few reports from these installations, but 
their usefulness is so great that once they are built they are rarely 
allowed to go out of commission, and there are but one or two 
cases of discontinuance. 

Medical Schools and Laboratories. Following the example of 
Johns Hopkins University, the medical colleges have found it 
greatly to their advantage to install small powerful furnaces for 
the disposal of a very refractory and objectionable form of 
refuse. These special constructions in one or two cases employ 
oil as fuel ; in others, gas, natural or artificial, is used with equally 
good results. 

All laboratories use fire for the destruction of certain sub- 
stances, but for pathogenic and bacteriological work a different 
and larger form of destructor is found to be indispensable. These 
constructions are of special form, placed often on the upper floor 
of buildings, using any available fuel, and are compact, very pow- 
erful and serviceable. 

Installations for Hotels. The addition of a garbage furnace to 
the machinery equipment of a great modern hotel involves but 
comparatively small cost, and provides a rapid and satisfactory 
way to get rid of objectionable waste the removal of which en- 



134 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

tails cost and often causes nuisance. When the usual agencies of 
removal are interrupted by storms or unforeseen accidents, there 
is always trouble, and the accumulation of two or three days be- 
comes a serious question to deal with. The architects and en- 
gineers of the latest great hotels now provide for the installation 
of furnaces, and arrange for their flue connection with the smoke 
flue or direct with the chimneys. The great height of these 
chimney-stacks and strongly induced draft does away with the 
necessity of a forced draft at the destructor. The capacity of 
these furnaces, burning every form of waste matter produced, ex- 
cepting only the ashes from the boiler fires, is sometimes five to 
eight tons daily, as large as would be built in a town of 5,000 to 
8,000 people. 

The heat developed is sometimes utilized in separately attached 
steam boilers employed in the minor service of the hotel, or may 
be used for heating the feed water of the main battery of steam 
boilers. 

For apartment houses a smaller form of furnace is constructed, 
and this may be fitted with coils of piping for the hot water sup- 
ply of the building. All these furnaces must be provided with 
approved apparatus for destroying the noxious gases thrown off, 
or there may be complaints o nuisance. 

BUSINESS INSTALLATIONS. 

Business men of the present day as a general rule recognize 
the value of by-products, and do not destroy refuse of any kind 
until the last salable item that can be extracted is taken out. 
There are many examples where the by-product to be had from 
apparently worthless matter when intelligently treated, brings 
large returns. 

But, whatever may be the process, there still remains a last 
and ultimate form of refuse that is best disposed of by incinera- 
tion, and there is probably no better illustration of the usefulness 
of special furnaces for destruction by fire than instances shown 
in table XLII. 

Under the head of trade refuse is included every class of waste 
produced or remaining unsalable in trading or business establish- 
ments or manufacturing industries. As a rule the removal of this 



DISPOSAL BY CREMATORIES AND INCINERATORS. 135 

is not done by the town, though the town furnishes a place for 
its deposit, and the oversight of the means for handling it. 

Within the past few years it has become evident that incinera- 
tion on the premises is more convenient and economical, as the 
cost of a properly constructed furnace can be saved in a year 
or two. 

First Installation. The Macy Department Store, New York 
City, in 1902, was the first of this class of business establishments 
to destroy its waste within the building. A special form of fur- 
nace was designed by the author and placed in connection with 
one of the steam boilers of the building. 

The waste from each floor is discharged through a chute to the 
receiving room, the salable parts sorted out, and the remainder, 
with the refuse from the restaurants and all worthless matters, is 
destroyed. This same design was afterward adopted at several 
large department stores, and at various warehouses and factories 
with equally good results in every case. 

The waste from great railroad stations is destroyed quickly 
and without offense, but demands a special form of furnace suited 
to the mixed character of refuse. 

This method can be employed with great advantage in a great 
variety of cases when the disposal of waste is difficult to deal with 
in the usual way. 

In General. Beginning in 1900 the author designed and built 
many furnaces for hospitals, colleges, hotels and business estab- 
lishments. In most instances these were of special form of con- 
truction intended for particular purposes, and included a wide 
variety of designs in their application to the disposal of every 
class of waste produced by these buildings. Since then a great 
number of furnaces of this character have been built, and they 
have increased so rapidly that it is impossible to furnish data in 
regard to them. 

In addition to the styles of furnace enumerated there are a 
considerable number of smaller incinerators used in the Regular 
Army camps and in the cantonments of State Militia, when these 
troops are assembled for annual practice manoeuvers, and in many 
such places the grounds are provided with stationary crematories 



136 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

of differing types, suited to temporary use, and installed by the 
Government at moderate cost. 

There are also several builders of still smaller incinerators 
which are used in camps and the dwellings of summer residents. 
These, and several other forms of small furnaces, do not properly 
come under the classification of institutional furnaces, and, there- 
fore, are not included in the foregoing lists. 

SUCCESSFUL PRIVATE INSTALLATIONS. 

Under this title are included all forms of construction that are 
not limited to municipal and governmental service. Here there 
is a wide range covered, a remarkably successful use of every op- 
portunity, and a gratifying absence of failure as compared with 
the larger and more ambitious forms. 

These installations have not only been able to meet all the con- 
ditions imposed, but they have maintained and extended their use- 
fulness and have established a reliable means for the destruction 
of every class of worthless matter. 

This country has long been under the imputation of signal 
failure in methods and apparatus for the treatment of public 
wastes, perhaps a deserved reproach when we consider what has 
been done elsewhere on similar lines of public work. But this 
cannot be said to apply to cases of individual waste disposal in 
institutions, in manufacturing establishments and in private busi- 
nesses. 

We may be behind in the branch of municipal work, owing 
chiefly to causes and conditions peculiar to our country and which 
do not exist abroad, but we not only lead in the variety of small 
furnace designs and their adaptation to the special work required 
we have a far larger number of them in use and they are fully 
as efficient and economical as any of their class built elsewhere. 

It should be noted that this type of furnace construction does 
not follow any foreign pattern, but that it is the logical develop- 
ment along certain lines of the crude beginnings of twenty years 
ago, marking each difficult progressive step by improved apparatus 
and better results. Within a well-defined and limited field of 
work the furnaces have been uniformly successful. 



DISPOSAL BY CREMATORIES AND INCINERATORS. 137 

REASONS FOR MUNICIPAL FAILURES. 

The large percentage of failures of installations for municipal 
work has previously been briefly noted. 

Of two hundred and eight the whole number built and here re- 
ported, one hundred and eight, or 50 per cent., have been dis- 
continued and abandoned. On the other hand, only 4 per cent, 
of the total number of furnaces built for government or private 
use have failed of continuance. The reasons for this striking 
difference may be thus stated : 

1. A lack of professional knowledge necessary for the accurate analysis 
of the character of the various kinds of waste, and in lieu of this in- 
formation the estimate of quantities and qualities by guesswork, without a 
definite standard for reference and comparison. 

2. The want of sound engineering knowledge of the principles of com- 
bustion, heat and resulting gases ; mistakes in estimating the proper dimen- 
sions and proportions of the working parts of the installation, and from 
lack of scientific training the inability to remedy defects or correct errors. 

3. Faults in design and construction arising from an apparent disin- 
clination to profit by the experience of others, leading to a repetition of 
futile experiments and forms of construction tried elsewhere and abandoned. 

4. An overconfident opinion that a machine or process that deals suc- 
cessfully with certain kinds of waste material will produce equally good 
results from municipal waste. 

5. The unskillful management of garbage crematories by men appointed 
for reasons other than their fitness for the work. This is forcibly stated 
by an authority as follows : 

"The expert garbage fireman who is considered essential to success in 
England is generally supplanted here by a man whose only qualification for 
this position may be that he can shovel coal or pull out clinker, but gen- 
erally has not the remotest knowledge or even conception of the difficulties 
of burning on a large scale the most heterogeneous mass of all forms of 
solid mater to be gathered from a modern community." (Transactions of 
Am. Soc. Civil Engineers, Vol XXIX, p. 82.) 

6. There are too few official reports that give quantities, costs and other 
details to show what is being done from year to year, thereby enabling the 
authorities to correct errors and improve the service. These reports, if 
truthful and complete, would soon fix the responsibility for bad apparatus 
and poor management, and would, moreover, be of great assistance to 
other communities seeking information. But the truth should be told 
without fear or favor, or there will be a misrepresentation of conditions 
and a perpetuation of errors. 

THE SHARE OF MUNICIPAL RESPONSIBILITY. 

The responsibility for failures is not all on the side of the de- 
signer or builder. The municipal authorities are themselves a 
large factor of uncertainty in the general result. 

When the nuisance of incompetent waste disposal or the want 



138 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

of any becomes plainly evident, and the protests of the people 
are loudly insistent, the matter is referred to a committee with in- 
structions to obtain information, examine and report. Details are 
asked for, and straightway a great bulk of pamphlets, plans, 
reports, schemes and suggestions from all sorts of interested 
parties are submitted. To deal with this mass of conflicting de- 
tail, and to reduce it to any sort of intelligent order and formulate 
a report, demands more technical knowledge and time than the 
average official can give. The town officers and employees who 
are competent to give assistance have their own departments of 
duty and are not always available, for practical help in this pre- 
liminary stage. They are, moreover, not anxious to offer advice 
or suggestions upon a subject with which they have had little or 
no experience, and certainly no technical training. 

The inspection of plants operating under conditions like their 
own, in towns of similar size, seems to be considered a necessary 
part of the preliminary work as it is conducted at present. Junket- 
ing excursions to distant places must be made at some one's ex- 
pense. For town officials it is part of the "perquisites of office"; 
to a prospective builder who pays traveling expenses, it is an in- 
vestment for a purpose and sometimes returns to him with com- 
pound interest. 

When the specifications are to be issued for bids the uncertainty 
as to just what is really needed makes it impossible to state defi- 
nite terms and conditions. Usually it is left for open proposals 
from all interested parties, frequently ending with the rejection of 
all, and the process is repeated until a choice is at last made. 

The methods that sometimes determine this final selection do 
not always procure the best results for the town. One writer has 
expressed himself clearly on these questions: * 

It should in justice to the builders of municipal plants be added that the 
fault of most failures lies at the door of the municipal authorities, on one 
or another of the following scores : Acceptance of an untried installation 
designed by some local party without substantial experience or attainment 
in this line of work. Contracting in good faith for an unsuitable in- 
stallation, because of ignorance by the purchaser of what the conditions to 
be met really are. Determination by the municipal authorities to award 
work to contractors who will pay the largest sum to those who have the 
power to determine who shall secure the contract. 

Unfortunately, in spite of the recent outcry against graft, the affairs of 

'"Garbage Crematories in America." W. M. Venable, N. Y., 1906. Jno. Wiley & 
Sons. 



DISPOSAL BY CREMATORIES AND INCINERATORS. 139 

most American cities and towns are controlled by persons who either 
demand contributions from public contractors for themselves or permit 
their subordinates to demand them in order to retain the services of those 
subordinates. So many and so various and subtle are the methods by 
which political prostitutes may cheat the people of money that few con- 
tractors and few engineers are able to withstand the pressure brought to 
bear upon them, if they seek to serve a public where the grafters are in 
control, or even in the minority, on the city council or other public body 
in control of the municipal administration. 

This is a plain statement of facts which, though often difficult 
to prove, can still be well substantiated in many cases. There is 
probably no department of municipal service in which greater op- 
portunities are afforded for doubtful and crooked work, and cer- 
tainly none where it is so persistently and openly practised. It is 
not an attractive nor always an agreeable branch of work, but 
yet it is one that deserves more rigid attention and more honest 
treatment than is commonly given it. 

SHARE OF RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ADVISORY BOARDS. 

Not all the blame for mismanagement and incompetency in 
disposal work should attach to the financial and executive depart- 
ments. The advisory boards of health, whose province should 
be strictly limited to investigation, report and advice on matters 
that concern public hygiene, are frequently placed in positions that 
require them to select and install apparatus with which they are 
either unacquainted or in the purchase of which they may be 
personally interested. 

While the physician is recognized as the authority upon ques- 
tions that concern the prevention, discovery and treatment of 
disease, whether of the individual or of the community, there is a 
distinction to be made between that which relates to the profes- 
sional and medical side of the subject and that which applies to 
the mechanical and physical side. 

Undoubtedly the whole general question can be dealt with by 
the medical fraternity, but in a municipal administration there 
should be separation of the advisory and executive branches of 
the Health Department, as each phase of the subject requires 
technical education and special training in order to achieve the 
best results, 



140 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

WHAT is HYGIENE AND WHAT SANITATION. 

Hygiene in its widest sense is "the science that treats of the 
preservation of health," and this term includes sanitation as the 
means of specific, well-defined method of health preservation. 

The difference has been well defined by an eminent authority, 
whose services in both branches are well known : * 

The sphere of hygiene is naturally separable into two distinct hemi- 
spheres, one dealing directly and chiefly with individuals or masses of 
individuals, the other directly and chiefly with their environments. . . . 
In spite of its admitted importance, hygiene occupies only a very small 
place in our medical schools, partly, I believe, because sanitation has 
become so large a part of hygiene, and sanitation belongs in schools of 
engineering. ... It is to-day absurd for the average well-trained 
medical student to think of becoming an expert in such branches of 
hygiene as water supply, sewerage, heating and ventilation, street building, 
cleaning and watering, garbage collection and disposal, gas and other 
forms of light, ice supply, milk supply, the abatement of nuisances, etc. 
Those belong rather to the sanitary engineer, sanitary chemist and sani- 
tary biologist ; to sanitation rather than hygiene. . . . As for research, 
it is idle to expect the ordinary medical man to spend much time upon or 
to be greatly interested in the detailed problems of water or sewerage 
purification, even if he has as he generally has not the requisite training. 

AN ENGINEERING PROBLEM. 

Briefly, then, sanitation as concerned with waste disposal is an 
engineering problem, and the difficulties encountered can best 
be overcome when competent engineers are employed for the spe- 
cial purpose. 

As compared with the usual way of -conducting this work, the 
engineer has many advantages that can be hardly overestimated. 
An examination made by a competent man, trained in this special 
line of municipal work, would proceed on this line : 

The review of the municipal records if there were any of 
the past, to know what has been done, and the preparation of a 
clear and concise tabulation of this as a basis for future work, is 
only the beginning. Then comes a careful study of reports, 
papers and writings on this subject that may bear upon this 
particular case. It must be remembered there is but little reliable 
literature on this subject, foreign experience does not always 
agree with our local conditions, and a good deal of ground must 
be covered with relatively poor returns. 



*Prof. W. T. Sedgwick, "Contributions from Sanitary Research Laboratory," Vol. 
III. Mass. Institute of Technology. 



DISPOSAL BY CREMATORIES AND INCINERATORS. 141 

Later the investigation of the various methods available is taken 
up, and here the technical training in fundamental principles that 
underlie the many schemes, plans, processes and sytems is abso- 
lutely essential. He must be able to distinguish between the true 
and the false, and to be proof against the plausible arguments, 
misrepresentations and appeals brought to bear through personal, 
political and financial pressure. When all this is finally threshed 
out, and a well-defined plan or policy fixed upon, the report is 
drawn up and the specifications prepared, which eliminate the 
weak, crude, impracticable and vicious elements and state clearly 
what the town desires to obtain and what conditions the tenders 
must conform to; and this final report, with the diagrams and 
plans, is submitted for action. 

The responsibility is thereafter upon the town authorities. They 
have before them a clear and accurate report, that covers every 
phase of the question they must decide upon, and which is un- 
biased and unpartisan, and presumed to be unconnected with any 
local clique or party, and not in the interest of any particular 
builder, machine, apparatus or process. The actual expense con- 
nected with this work is usually less than would be incurred by 
the present method of united or separate personal investigation by 
the members of a committee of the Council or Board of Health. 

THE INTEREST OF BOARDS OF TRADE. 

This means of arriving at the facts is often undertaken by the 
Boards of Trade, the Citizens' Business League, or other local 
associations that act independent of the local authorities, and sub- 
mit the results of their efforts in the form of recommendations or 
resolutions for consideration of the City Council. 

The Woman's Societies and Improvement Leagues often take a 
prominent part in these movements for better conditions of clean- 
liness, health and civic improvements, and especially in the con- 
trol and abatement of nuisances, too often overlooked and ignored 
by the town officers. 

The effect of this concerted action of these representative bodies 
of leading citizens, whose purpose is the good of the town gen- 
erally and not the up-building of a political machine, or the pro- 
motion of private interests, is always for the betterment of the 



142 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

civic welfare. When their remonstrances, protests and petitions 
are presented in a clear, forcible and intelligent manner, they 
sometimes carry greater weight and are productive of greater 
benefit than the half-hearted, hesitating and spineless official meas- 
ures of the town authorities. 

Public sentiment is the power behind the throne, and when this 
is fairly interested in behalf of a movement there are apt to be 
surprising results. 

REASONS FOR SLOW PROGRESS. 

Since the preparation of data for this book was begun the author 
has received many letters relating to the points touched upon. One 
of these points is that of the reason for the lack of progress in 
disposal work in this country during the past twenty years. 
Among those who have expressed themselves most forcibly is 
Mr. F. K. Rhines, until recently Secretary and Engineer of the 
Dixon Engineering and Construction Co., who has for many years 
studied the matter from a practical standpoint, and who has had 
wide experience in dealing with the various phases that are pre- 
sented. His statement may be read with the respect due an hon- 
est expression of experience and a desire to contribute to the so- 
lution of the problem. His statement is as follows : 

Without considering at present those municipal governments (by no 
means as uncommon as they should be) which are controlled by political 
bosses, individual or corporate, and ignoring for the moment that element 
of public life, let us be thankful for the case of the honest, intelligent public 
official who earnestly desires to serve the people who elected him. His 
case is of interest, for in it only is found any present promise of fulfillment 
of the real function of the officeholder the service of the people. 

Honest and intelligent the man may be, but how often are these ad- 
mirable, but insufficient, attributes combined with the complementary 
qualification of competency? The practice has so established itself through 
long custom that, although we usually put a C. E. in the City Engineer's 
chair, and demand a Health Officer who can show a doctor's degree, men 
are set up as law-makers for their city without question as to their qualifi- 
cations, provided only that they can show the required number of votes. 

But honesty and intelligence are quoted too high in public life to be 
lightly discarded. Let us be thankful for these, and content for a be- 
ginning. That we are still only at the beginning of many things municipal 
which will be considered as elementary necessities half a century hence, is 
no great wonder when it is remembered that so comparatively short a 
time has elapsed since the beginning of everything in this country that we 
have been obliged to face our manifold problems of civic life in the order 
of their insistence. 

There are scores of cities whose Mayors went swimming as boys where 
the City Hall or Post Office now stands, which have had their whole civic 



DISPOSAL BY CREMATORIES AND INCINERATORS. 143 

growth compressed into a quarter of a century, and surely they may plead 
the excuse of a "busy day" if they have neglected some of the more 
modern arts and principles of municipal well-being. But there are plenty 
of others that were well-groomed cities before their present Mayors were 
born, which still have made no pretence of establishing even a system of 
public refuse collection, to say nothing of disposal, and which, apparently, 
have not even commenced to awaken to a sense of civic responsibility in 
the matter. 

So, when many of our cities and towns have not yet recognized the fact 
that there is any "garbage disposal problem," and the rank and file of the 
city fathers are still far from being specialists in such familiar matters as 
street paving, lighting, water works and sewerage, is it not more cause for 
regret than wonderment if they are all at sea when it comes to handling 
those newer departments of municipal endeavor which are still unknown, 
unheard of, to so many? 

But ignorance is merely an explanation not an excuse! And it is be- 
coming more inexcusable every day. If by mistakes we learn and by 
failures we advance, then the past twenty years of American experience in 
garbage disposal cannot be without value ; yet it would almost seem to be 
so, as far as concerns the usual way of getting at the facts. 

It is a distinctly American trait to yearn for first-hand experience. As 
cities we are not willing to take anybody's word for anything. But in the 
case in question, is it not generally true that the desire to be "shown" 
arises from ignorance of the fact that there is any one whose opinion is of 
value, for whose expert advice money spent is not merely spent, but well 
invested? 

The most superficial survey of the experience of almost any dozen cities 
in this country cannot but convince one of the haphazard nature of the 
efforts put forth in this direction. When bids are invited for the con- 
struction of a garbage disposal plant, not one city in a hundred can give 
prospective bidders any intelligent idea of the amount, character or com- 
position of the waste matter to be dealt with. Frequently it has not been 
even decided whether the reduction or incineration method will be em- 
ployed, where the plant will be located, what classes of waste will be 
handled, whether it is desirable to attempt power production, or what 
disposition is to be made of the residue. Yet these are all data to which 
the bidder is entitled, which he must have in order to design and build a 
plant suited to the city's individual needs, and in order to be at all certain 
of accomplishing the results sought after. Without this information, which 
the city receiving proposals is rarely able to give, and which the bidder is 
still more rarely able to secure for himself, the installation of any system 
must be made more or less at random, and results are bound to be in the 
same degree problematical. 

Yet instead of securing the services of some competent consulting engi- 
neer who has made a special study of refuse disposal, the average city, 
when it finally does step out and determine to do something toward 
cleaning up and becoming a pleasanter, decenter place to live in, goes about 
the matter as if it were exploring unknown wilds. Little heed is given to 
the mistakes and failures, or even the successes, of other cities too little, 
at any rate, to learn why failure or success resulted. Some energetic 
Health Officer conceives the idea of inaugurating better methods of 
garbage disposal, and brings the matter to the attention of the City 
Council. At best an inevstigration and report are asked of the City 
Engineer: or perhaps it is referred back to the Health Officer, whose 
hands are already more than full, if all his duties are properly attended to, 
even if he were competent to furnish the expert knowledge needed but 
more often the whole question is turned over to a committee of Council- 



144 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

men who are still less qualified to solve the technical difficulties of the 
problem. 

Incompetent builders certainly share with incompetent officials the blame 
for much that is wrong and unsatisfactory in existing conditions, but the 
former are the direct result of the latter. When competent engineers 
make the necessary preliminary investigations, draw the plans, compile the 
specifications and supervise the construction, none but competent builders 
can do the work. 

On the fingers of one hand can be counted the American cities which 
have. confronted this question in a really intelligent way. In many others 
tolerably satisfactory results have been attained, but chance has always 
had a hand in the game and it merely happened that good luck, not bad 
luck, held the trumps. 

It is interesting to note that at the present time some of our most 
important cities are commissioning Consulting Engineers to make reports 
and recommendations in reference to refuse disposal, but this is an inno- 
vation, whereas it ought to be the ordinary, everyday, matter-of-course 
procedure, 



CHAPTER VII. 

THE AMERICAN GARBAGE CREMATORIES. 
NEED FOR A BETTER CLASSIFICATION OF GARBAGE FURNACES. 

There is evident need of a better classification of the terms at 
present used for the description of the several classes of Ameri- 
can garbage furnaces. Since there is no distinction made in the 
words cremator, crematory, garbage furnace, incinerator, or 
destructor, when used in connection with phrases defining crema- 
tion of waste or refuse, there is a confusion and uncertainty as to 
what kind or class of furnace is intended to be meant, when these 
terms are used. 

The titles garbage furnace and night soil furnace were used by 
Rider and Mann in the two first installations. The word cremator 
was adopted by the Engle Sanitary and Cremation Company and 
described all their municipal furnaces. They applied the term 
fire-closet to the small installations for domestic and schoolhouse 
purposes. 

Crematory was the term employed by the Dixon Sanitary 
Crematory Company and until lately it was a part of their official 
title. 

When the Montreal installation was made by Mr. Charles 
Thackeray, he used the "Thackeray patent incineration and crema- 
tion systems" and called his refuse furnace an incinerator. This 
was a misnomer, as the. furnace, copied from the "Fryer," was 
properly a destructor. 

The Davis Company called their furnace a garbage furnace, 
and their apparatus for burning bodies a cremation furnace. 

Mr. I. Smead, of Toledo, in building closets for the disposal of 
night soil in school buildings, called them dry closets, but his 
large furnace for municipal work was a garbage crematory. 

Col. Waring, when building his furnace for dry refuse at East 
Sixteenth street, New York, called it an incinerator, and this title 
has been followed by Mr. H. De B. Parsons, who calls his two 
New York installations for dry refuse rubbish incinerators. 

i45 



146 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

The author, when installing the Boston plant for dry refuse, 
chose the term destructor, mainly for the purpose of a distinctive 
name not previously used in this country. This was continued in 
the title of the Morse-Boulger Destructor Company. This is a 
furnace that burns garbage and refuse, not ashes, and the word 
destructor has not the broad application as employed in British 
practice. 

One American author* writing on this subject has made a 
classification which does not appear to give much help. He 
divides the crematories into five groups : 

Those where the garbage is burned by direct heat without previous 
drying. 

Where it is partially dried before burning. 

Where it is burned on a hearth or grate by fires from other grates. 

Where it is extensively dried, then stoked to another grate to be burned. 

Where gases from one grate or cell are passed through others to dry the 
garbage thereon. 

He further proposes a sub-division of these groups with re- 
spect to the garbage grates : 
Solid grates of iron. 
Grates of fire cjay. 

Grates of hollow iron cooled by water. 
Grates of hollow cast iron cooled by air. 

This classification is not exact in terms, altogether too confus- 
ing and unwieldly for reference, and conveys but little idea of the 
constructions of our crematories. His list of patents cited illus- 
trates the difficulties of these divisions, as many furnaces are 
built under two or more of these groups, and some are altogether 
outside this list. 

The classification of this apparatus by the U. S. Patent Office 
was at first made under the title "furnace for cremating garbage." 
Afterwards "garbage crematory" was used, and infrequently 
"furnace for incineration of garbage or night soil." The present 
custom is to include everything under the title "furnace," with 
a sub-division, "garbage furnaces" or "crematories," and "in- 
cinerators" for the destruction of other substances. 

The popular use of all the foregoing terms is combined in the 

Garbage Crematories ii\ America. Capt. W. M. Venable. Jno. Wiley & Son, N. Y. 



DISPOSAL BY CREMATORIES AND INCINERATORS. 147 

term "garbage crematory," but this does not appear to be suffi- 
ciently distinctive for the three separate types or forms now em- 
ployed, since it is applied to furnaces quite unlike in construction 
and for different uses. 

Since the purposes, the construction, and the limitations of 
the various apparatus are now much better defined than formerly, 
and since there is a need for a better distinctive classification, it 
seems only wise to separate them by using such terms as will 
distinctively indicate the particular uses for which they are built. 

PROPOSED CLASSFICATION. 

Thus, a crematory would mean a furnace for burning garbage 
and refuse mixed or not separated, but not ashes ; an incinerator 
would mean a furnace for refuse or rubbish only, and a destructor 
would imply the destruction of all classes of waste together in an 
unsorted condition, following the British term and practice. If 
this nomenclature were adopted, it would simplify and make the 
whole subject clearer to those whose knowledge is, as yet, some- 
what limited. 

There would undoubtedly be opposition from some builders 
who now use and claim one or another of these terms as their 
own title and property, but no valid objection can be made on this 
score, as each builder now constructs furnaces of different plans, 
for quite different uses, under the same patents, and may, with 
advantage to themselves as well as to the public, adopt a dis- 
tinctive title for each, prefixing their own or the company's name 
to the fusnace. 

OPERATING CREMATORIES. 

In attempting to describe the cremating furnaces now mostly 
in use the writer has found it difficult to get accurate descriptions, 
except from the patent drawings, and as each builder departs 
somewhat from his original plans according to local conditions, 
these drawings do not precisely represent the furnaces. 

The intention is to give such descriptions not in technical 
terms and illustrations as will enable the reader who may be 
interested in the subject, to understand something of the con- 
struction and operation of the various forms. 

As far as possible the builder's own terms and description are 



148 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

followed, and there is added some slight sketches of those who 
have longest been identified with this work. 

INVENTIONS OF MR. ANDREW ENGLE. 

This inventor was one of the first whose devices for sanitary 
work came prominently before the public. As early as 1884 he 
took out a patent for an apparatus that "conveyed solid and fluid 
matter through tubes to a retort in a furnace, subjected this to 
heat, and conveyed the volatile matter into a superheater, con- 
verting it into inflammable gas, at the same time converting the 
solids remaining in the retort into charcoal." 

This and another invention were purchased by a company 
formed for the purpose, and were extensively exploited. Sub- 
sequently, Messrs. Engle and Thompson secured a new patent 
(508,511, 1893) and under the title of the Engle Crematory 
Company, built furnaces at .Vancouver, Portland, O., and Topeka, 
and Mr. Thompson built one at Wichita, Kan. None of these 
are now operating. Mr. Engle's latest invention is "Engle's Fuel 
and ^Fertilizer," "a combination of garbage, night soil and manure 
with a material that renders it valuable for the purposes of fuel 
or fertilizer. The product may be made in bricks with a press 
and stored for use, or it may be used while green for making 
fires in kilns, steam plants, or crematories. The fertilizer is equal 
to bone meal." 

The inventor further says : "I seek to devise means by which 
the wastes may be kept from the streams at a financial compen- 
sation to the town so doing. While I recognize I cannot hope 
to do it all, I feel ambitious to give to the world results that 
will save life and aid the world in better health and consequently 
greater happiness." 

Mr. Engle has for more than twenty-five years been identified 
with sanitary work in manv lines, and is a student and analyst 
of very consicieraole attainments. The Engle fire closet and 
Engle cremator have made his name known all over this country. 

Engle Sanitary and Cremation Company was formed at Des 
Moines, la., early in 1886 to take over the patents of Mr. Andrew 
Engle. 

The officers were : J. C. Savery, president ; Jas. Callanan, treas- 
urer; G. H. Warner, secretary. The Western business manager 



DISPOSAL BY CREMATORIES AND INCINERATORS. 



149 



was W. C. Smith. The Eastern business was done from a 
New York office of which W. F. Morse was manager and Benja- 
min Boulger constructor. This was the first company to sys- 
tematically push its business, and during the sixteen years of 
its work built many cremators in this country. The most suc- 
cessful installation was as the World's Fair, Chicago, in 1893. 
It was the first company to build abroad ; its Panama furnace 
(1892) is still in active use. During the panic of 1893 tne officers 
of the company suffered financial reverses and few constructions 
were made thereafter. The two last ones at Grand Rapids and 
Milwaukee were not under the Engle patents, though under their 
name. 

The success of this company and the development of this idea 




FIG. 22. THE ORIGINAL ENGLE CREMATOR. 

of destroying worthless matter by fire in this country was largely 
due to the unfailing financial support of Mr. James C. Savery, 
the president of the Engle company. He took the keenest in- 
terest in the work and was a firm believer in the benefits to be 
had from improved sanitary conditions brought about largely by 
these cremators. 

Mr. Savery died in 1905 and his place in the business of the 
company and in the progressive spirit of this line of sanitary work 
has never been filled. 

ENGLE CREMATOR. 

The early form of the Engle cremator (Fig. 22) was a rectan- 
gular brick construction whose exterior dimensions in height 
and width were each about one-third of its length. There was 



150 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

usually a steel chimney of 75 feet and a wooden covering house 
with inclined wooden approaches and wide platform for wagons. 

The interior was lined with fire brick and divided by a hori- 
zontal set of grates, made at first of hollow iron pipes, and below 
these a platform of fire-clay tiling. 

The garbage was discharged direct from the carts through 
three circular openings to the upper or first set of grate bars, 
the liquid not held in suspension in the garbage passing through 
to the platform where it was evaporated. At the rear end of 
the cremator was the first or primary fire-box, separated from 
the chimney by a damper. The secondary fire was at the front 
end and below the level of the drying platform. Dampers con- 
trolled the volume of gases in such a manner that the heat from 
the primary fire passed over the garbage piled on the upper 
grates, and under these over the platform, or under the platform, 
as desired, or direct to the chimney as determined by the damper 
between them. 

The theory of this furnace which is indeed the theory of its 
successors and imitators was that the gases and vapors of the 
combustion of the 1 waste piled up on the grates should be com- 
pelled to pass ater the secondary fire before being released to 
the stack. By arrangement of the dampers the second fire may 
become the primary fire, and the first one in turn consume the 
gases. 

One of the openings for charging in the top was large enough 
to admit the carcass of a horse. The evaporating hearth received 
all moisture and also the ashes from the grates above ; but with 
this exception, no attempt was made to dry out the moisture 
before burning. The operation was without nuisance when prop- 
erly conducted, and the cremator used any available fuel, gas, 
coal, wood or coke. Very large quantities of night soil and satur- 
ated garbage were destroyed when required, with reasonable ex- 
pense for fuel and labor. 

The points of weakness in this form were the grates of iron 
piping, the damper of cast iron, and the tiling of the evaporating 
hearth, which gave way under high temperatures when saturated 
with moisture. A new form of stronger construction was finally 
adopted and became the standard. 

In this furnace (Fig. 23) -the same general exterior dimensions 



DISPOSAL BY CREMATORIES AND INCINERATORS. 151 

and appearance are kept, but the interior is greatly modified. 
There are two fires placed on horizontal lines at opposite ends 
of the grate, which is made of a series of railroad bars, spaced 
and inverted and held in this position by clips. The lower hearth 
is omitted, the liquids passing into the bottom compartment, being 
helped in evaporation by the hot ashes from the grates .above. 
The dampers are fire-clay slabs and the interior walls of heavy 
blocks of fire clay. Subsequently the iron rails of the garbage 
grates were replaced by a specially fire-clay grate, and this by a 
series of flat fire-brick transverse arches which are still used. 
In all furnaces of this type the garbage grates are difficult to 
maintain. Those of hollow pipe, even when brought through the 




FIG 23. THE LATER ENGLE CREMATOR. 

furnace walls to the outside to obtain a circulation of cold air, 
speedily gave way. Afterwards these grates were connected to 
headers and a circulation of water kept up, but the loss of heat 
and incomplete combustion of garbage in contact made it neces- 
sary to discard this system. The steel railroad bars are probably 
the best for iron grates and give better service than any form 
of triangular hollow cast-iron bars, or of water grates where the 
heat taken up by the water is a very large item of loss. 

There are still some ten or twelve of the Engle cremators 
operating. The largest in continuous service and the oldest in- 
stallations in this line in this country are at New York, Panama, 
Richmond and Norfolk, Va. 

The Engle Cremator was the first in garbage disposal work 



152 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

and the general features of its construction were followed by 
those who same after, with such modifications as were patentable. 

THE DIXON SANITARY CREMATORY COMPANY. 

This organization was formed at Findlay, O., in 1893, to take 
up the patents of S. W. Dixon (October, 1891, and April, 1894). 
After remodeling the Engle cremator at Findlay the first crema- 
tory was built at Elwood, Ind., followed by others at McKeesport, 
Pa., and Atlanta, Ga. In 1898 the patents and business passed 
into the hands of a new company at Toledo, O., with D. C. Shaw, 
president; G. H. Breyman, vice-president, and E. J. Little, secre- 
tary and treasurer. In the succeeding years this company secured 
new patents and built many crematories all over this country, in- 
cluding nine installations for the United States Government and 
several institutional plants. This was the first company to unite 
with local corporations for the collection and disposal of all 
municipal waste, as at Trenton, N. J., and Oakland, Cal. 

A large share of their success was due to the energy and enter- 
prise of Mr. E. J. Little, who was the active manager. His im- 
provements in furnace construction and methods of collection 
service were of great value to his company, as also to the gen- 
eral work of waste disposal for municipalities. By reason of the 
long railroad journeys and the tremendous labor of oversight of 
contract and construction at widely separated points, Mr. Little 
died in 1905. He was succeeded by Mr. F. K. Rhines, who for 
some time had been his chief assistant. Mr. Rhines was the 
Secretary and Chief Engineer up to January, 1908, when he re- 
tired from the association. The corporation changed its title in 
1907, and is now The Dixon Engineering and Construction Com- 
pany. 

THE DIXON CREMATORY. 

The Dixon crematory of the earlier form (Fig. 24) is an 
elongated rectangular brick structure, enclosing a fire brick cham- 
ber divided by horizontal transverse garbage grates into two 
nearly equal compartments. There is a double fire box at the 
front end, from which the heat passes over and under the gar- 
bage grates, the gases uniting to pass through a flue at the rear 
end to a combustion chamber fitted with a fire box, and over this 



DISPOSAL BY CREMATORIES AND INCINERATORS. 



153 



a series of staggered fire brick "stench bars," for deodorizing 
and destroying the products of combustion. 

The earlier forms used cast-iron bars for garbage grates, since 
discarded for a more durable arch of fire-clay tile in two sections. 
This furnace is charged through the openings directly from the 
carts to the garbage 'grates with no attempt at preliminary drying. 
The passage of the flames to the chimney is uninterrupted, except 
by the stench bars, and this^ constitutes the "direct draft." 

In the later forms the rectangular top is arched and rounded 
to form a segment of a circle, and the exterior casing is of 



t Pioe Receiving rippr 



LONGITUDINAL SECTION TriROUGM CENTER OF FURNACE 
Receiving Plotter m 




TRANiVCR3E JtCTlON Q TRANiVERiE 

FIG. 24. DIRECT DRAFT DIXON CREMATORY. 

steel plate, braced and strengthened by angle bars. The top 
charging platform is of steel plate supported on standards bolted 
to the iron jacket of the furnace. The chimneys are usually of 
steel, placed on the end of the crematory above the combustion 
chamber. 

The other form of the Dixon crematory has three important 
changes of the interior construction differing from the direct 
draft type as shown in Fig. 25. 

The purpose of the inventors was "to provide means for dry- 
ing the garbage, so that itself will serve as fuel for its own com- 



154 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 



bustion, and for the rapid evaporation of water and other fluids, 
and for feeding to the furnace at such points and in such quanti- 




FIG. 25. RETURN DRAFT DIXON CREMATORY. 

ties as may be desired, the dried or partly-dried substances to be 
consumed." 

The crematory is divided into three compartments, the upper 




FIG. 26. EXTERIOR OF DIXON CREMATORY, READY FOR TRANS- 
PORTATION. 

one called a drying chamber receives the charge of green garbage 
from above, and has a series of trap doors with covers operated 
by chains, through which it is passed to the destruction chamber 



DISPOSAL BY CREMATORIES AND INCINERATORS. 155 

below. When partially or completely burned, it passes to the 
third or lower evaporating chamber, from which the ashes are 
withdrawn The liquids pass to the lower compartment. 

The fuel boxes are at the chimney or rear end, the heat pass- 
ing under the floor of the destruction chamber, and through this, 
or above through the drying chamber, as may be desired. 

The same arrangement of secondary fire and stench bars in 
the combustion chamber of the stack is continued, or this may be 
replaced by a series of horizontal fire-clay tubes, heated from 
below by the primary fire box, in which the gases of combustion 
are finally destroyed. 




FIG. 27. DIXON CREMATORY, FORT WAYNE, IND. 

This combination of three chambers, for different purposes, 
with the necessary doors and dampers, is somewhat complicated, 
and needs attention to secure good results. This "return draft" 
furnace is used mostly for the smaller installations, and employed 
but three times in municipal work. 

As stated by the manager of the Dixon company: "In all 
forms of crematories built under the 'Dixon' name, there is mani- 
fest a desire to adhere to the simplicity of principles which was 
the key to the success of the original invention." 



156 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

The work of this company has extended all over this country, 
and the largest number of operating disposal plants stands to its 
credit. There are two Dixon crematories in South America, 
and a small furnace was built in Cuba during the Spanish-Amer- 
ican war. 

The company was awarded the Grand Prize for its work at 




FIG. 28. DIXON CREMATORY, LEXINGTON, KY. 



the World's Fair, St. Louis, in 1904, and the Dixon crematory 
was installed at the Jamestown Exposition at Norfolk, in 1907. 

THE DAVIS GARBAGE FURNACE COMPANY. 

The Davis Garbage Furnace was the invention of Dr. M. L. 
Davis, Lancaster, Pa., October, 1891. The first installation was 
at Lancaster, 1891, followed by furnaces at Reading, Pa., and 
Trenton, N. J., 1899. The Reading furnace was discontinued in 
1899. Others were built at Oil City and Coudersport, Pa., and 
for the United States Government at Havana, now discontinued. 
The Trenton furnace is the best known one of this company, and 
was reported upon by Mr. Rudolph Hering (previously noted). 



DISPOSAL BY CREMATORIES AND INCINERATORS. 157 

The Davis furnace as described by Mr. John H. Hook, secre- 
tary of the company, is composed of three separate compartments 
or chambers. 

The Primary fire chamber for fuel to begin the work, after- 
wards for the garbage dried upon the grates of the drying cham- 
ber. 

The Garbage drying chamber, which is charged from above 
through a circular opening in the roof, and which is floored by 
a movable iron grate which may be raised, or inclined toward 
the primary fire box for dumping the dried charge when desired. 

Beneath this inclined grate is an iron evaporating pan, which 
receives the liquids from the garbage above. The evaporated 
vapors pass through the grate, and, with the products of com- 




FIG. 29. DAVIS GARBAGE FURNACE. 

bustion of the garbage, pass through a short flue into the third 
division. 

The Smoke consuming chamber is at a higher level, and so 
arranged with a fuel box and ash pit below that the smoke and 
gases of combustion must pass completely over this fire to reach 
the flue connecting with the stack. 

The furnace is a large cell with a capacity of about eight tons 
per day, and two or more may be built in battery connected with 
a chimney in common. 

The patentee, Dr. M. L. Davis, has made several useful inven- 
tions in the line of sanitary work, the Davis cremation furnace 
and the Davis Hospital for Contagious Diseases being among 
those best known. 



158 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

THACKERAY INCINERATOR COMPANY. 

The garbage and refuse furnace built at Montreal by Mr. 
Charles Thackeray in 1894 was the first departure from the popu- 
lar form of American crematory. He took the "Fryer" de- 
structor as his model in all the essential points, except that each 
cell or furnace was made independent of the others, and placed 
back to back to form a battery or series of cells having a common 
charging platform on top. (Fig. 30.) 

Each cell is charged from the top, the garbage falling on a 
short, sharply-inclined hearth of fire-brick (f) just above the fire 
bars. These inclined fire grates are two sections, the upper ones 
stationary (a), the lower ones are rocking grates, by the motibn 




FIG. 30. THACKERAY GARBAGE INCINERATOR. 

of which the refuse is gradually moved forward and the clinkers 
deposited on the dead plate are removed through the doors. 

The gases and products of combustion pass through side flies 
into passages between the cells and back and downward to the 
smaller longitudinal flue (e), which at the end discharge into the 
main central flue (c) to the chimney. There was at first a steam 
boiler set in this central flue, as shown in the figure, but as this 
obstructed the draft, and did not develop steam sufficient to fur- 
nish a forced draft or move the rocking grates, it was removed. 

The furnaces are operated by natural draft, the chimney being 



DISPOSAL BY CREMATORIES AND INCINERATORS. 



159 



180 feet heigh. Additional details of cost of construction and 
operating expenses are reported in preceding chapters. 

GARBAGE FURNACES OF W. F. MORSE AND BENJAMIN BOULGER. 

Some time after the Engle Company had suspended business, 
W. F. Morse and Benjamin Boulger, who had been connected 
with this company, obtained a contract for a crematory at San 
Salvador, Central America. All the material needed was sent 
from New York, and Mr. Boulger installed the furnace in 1895-6 
under the patent obtained by him in 1893. 

Externally this furnace (Fig. 31) was of the usual form of 
American crematories, but provided with an extra number of 
charging holes. It was divided by a vertical bridge wall into 
three compartments, one long upper chamber, with garbage grates 




FIG. 31. FIRST BOULGER CREMATOR, 1895. 

continuous from end to end, and below this two smaller divisions 
with grates parallel to the upper tier, but with openings for the 
passage of the gases. At the chimney end the combustion cham- 
ber was divided by a vertical wall for the lower half of its height. 
The fire-box was at the front end, but placed outside the furnace. 

The theory of this furnace was that the heat from the exterior 
fuel-box should pass up through the two sets of grates of the 
first compartment, then over the garbage on the grates of the 
second division, and beneath these to the combustion chamber and 
the chimney. A secondary fire-box was placed on the lower flue 
of the second division at some point before the combustion 
chamber. 

But one installation of this form was made at San Salvador, 
Central America and this is not now in operation. 

In November, 1906, Mr. Boulger took out a patent (No. 835,- 



160 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL or MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

699) for new and useful improvements in garbage furnaces, the 
construction and operation of which are thus described by the 
patentee : 

In feeding this destructor the drier matter is dumped preferably into the 
charging hole nearest the main fire-box. The wet swill is received on two 
tiers of fire-brick arches laid in rings spaced several inches apart, the whole 
forming drying and burning hearths, through which the waste and fire can 
readily make their way. 

The iron sloping grates in the fire-box may be given an oscillating down- 
ward movement. This slowly carries the waste and garbage thereon to 
the lower end, where the resulting ashes and clinker may be dumped. 
These sloping grates have an independent ash-pit, into which hot air is 
forced by steam jet blowers, situated under the back end of the furnace. 
The air passes along through the ducts under the furnace and absorbs 
some of the waste heat from the bottom of same before reaching the ash- 
pits. Passing up through the grates and garbage of the main fire-box, this 
heated air assists in the drying and combustion process. 

The heat and flames from the primary fire and sloping grates pass the 




FIG. 32, BOULGER GARBAGE CREMATORY. 

length of the furnace over the garbage deposited upon the first fire-brick 
hearth and return underneath them and over the second tier, igniting and 
destroying all the material thereon, and finally turning down under the 
second tier. At this point the secondary fire contributes its heat to the 
flaming gases, which pass into the combustion chamber and expand, and 
in their incandescent state are drawn against and through the fire-brick 
checker work. The resulting carbondioxide is discharged into the chimney 
or carried up the by-pass to the boiler. 

All ashes are removed through the lower clean-out doo r s. The main 
fire doors can be placed on the side with the other door openings to 
economize floor space. 

When the destructor is started and attains the necessary temperature, 
little, if any, additional fuel is needed, as long as the garbage is supplied 
for consumption. 

This form of furnace is employed in the smaller installations, 
for institutional and business purposes. For the larger sizes a 
small vertical steam boiler is connected with the combustion cham- 
ber and operated by the furnace heat. The power from this is 



DISPOSAL BY CREMATORIES AND INCINERATORS. 



161 



employed for a forced draft, and for rotating the oscillating iron 
sloping grates. There is a small surplus of power available when 
the furnace is burning at its greatest capacity. 

The only municipal installation of this furnace is at Butler, Pa. 

THE MORSE-BOULGER DESTRUCTOR. 

In 1898-9 Mr. Morse designed and constructed the Refuse 
Utilization Station at Boston, Mass., and here for the first time 
was built that form of furnace that afterwards came to be known 
as the Morse-Boulger Destructor. 

In this Boston furnace the original horizontal garbage grates 
of the early Engle pattern were used, but the front end of the 




FIG. 33, MORSE-BOULGER DESTRUCTOR. 

upper tier was inclined sharply down to the fire-box. These 
grates were parallel arches of fire-clay brick with spaces for 
passage of ashes. 

The secondary fire was in the lower flue, over which all prod- 
ucts of primary combustion passed, the light particles and fine 
dust being detained by perforated vertical walls. There is also 
a 6o-h.p. vertical boiler on the top of the rear end, operated by 
the furnace heat, but having its own fire-box. The plant has been 
in continuous work for ten years, and is fully described and illus- 
trated in Chapter II. 

Though this Boston furnace was for dry refuse, the forms of 
grates and position of fires made it well adapted for the dis- 
posal of garbage. It was improved upon, and many installations 



162 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

for institutions and other private purposes were made by Morse 
& Boulger up to 1904. 

The Boston plant was duplicated with many improvements, at 
Buffalo, and a large destructor was built at Manila, P. I., with a 
steam boiler for obtaining forced draft. This was the first in- 
stance of the application of blast under ash pits in American 
disposal work. 

In 1902 the business of Morse & Boulger was capitalized under 
the title of the Morse-Boulger Destructor Company, and a new 
patent taken out in 1904, This company held the American rights 




FIG. 34. CREMATORY OF THE MUNICIPAL ENGINEERING COMPANY. 

for the Meldrum Brothers' Destructors, of Manchester, England, 
but did no work under these patents. Mr. Morse retired in 1904, 
and the business has since been continued by Mr. Boulger as 
President, Treasurer and Manager, with a nominal Board of 
Directors. The control of the Meldrum Destructors was assumed 
by Mr. Morse. 

THE MUNICIPAL ENGINEERING COMPANY. 

The Municipal Engineering Company, of New York, was or- 
ganized in 1901 by Messrs. F. Brown, Lyon, C. McFarland and 
Fred P. Smith. Shortly afterward, Col. Willard Young became 
a stockholder and president. The crematories erected by this 



DISPOSAL BY CREMATORIES AND INCINERATORS. 163 

company under the patents of F. P. Smith were at Long Branch, 
N. J. (the only municipal plant), and at Forts Leavenworth, 
Moultrie, Brady, Slocum, and at Governor's Island, New York 
Harbor. All these furnaces were of small size. 

Fig. 34 is a longitudinal section of the crematory of this com- 
pany. The exterior walls, as a rule, are of steel plates lined 
with fire-brick, the general design and dimensions corresponding 
to the plan of the American crematories. The primary fire-box 
(2) at the front is a series of hollow cast-iron bars (4), arranged 
to discharge the air heated by passing through these above and 
behind the grate. The garbage grates are also of this same con- 
struction of hollow bars. They are placed in a series of steps, 
ascending from the primary fire, and separated by narrow, arched 
bridge walls of fire-brick (7). 

Below these grates is a shallow iron evaporating pan (12), 
which catches the drippings from the wet material on the grates 
above. There are dampers (14-15) behind each set of grates, 
which lead to the chimney, and below the evaporating pan is a 
passage (13) open to the chimney, but controlled by a damper 
(16). 

There are doors for fuel boxes and for stoking the garbage 
from the highest grate downward to the fire-box, where it 
furnishes fuel for drying and burning the successive charges. 
By the intelligent operation of the dampers at proper intervals, 
the air and heat are drawn through the garbage on the grates, 
carrying off the fumes and gases direct to the chimney; or by 
closing the dampers the gases are directed downward beneath the 
evaporating pan through the lower passage. 

All of this interior construction, except the bridge walls and 
lining, is of cast-iron, the special features being the hollow grate 
bars, through which a current of air is induced by the stack 
draft, preserving the bars from giving way and providing heated 
air for combustion. This company was the assignee of six 
patents of Mr. F. P. Smith for various forms of furnaces for 
waste materials, but no others than the one described were built. 



164 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 



STANDARD CONSTRUCTION Co. AND MR. W. B. WRIGHT OK 

CHICAGO. 

In 1899 Mr. W. B. Wright erected under patent No. 575,088. 
1897, an incinerator for the garbage and refuse of the group of 
institutions of Chicago at the "Bridewell." 

This invention (Fig. 35) is known as the Wright Garbage 
Incinerating Furnace, and follows in its general plans the cell 
type of the English dectructors. It is practically two cells placed 
back to back, having a charging port (2) in common. The gar- 
bage falls upon a sharply inclined fire-brick hearth, having its 
surface serrated or notched to form shallow gutters or steps (7) ; 
the purpose being to separate the liquids, draining these off at 
the sides, and to break up the masses of packed garbage in their 
descent to the fire-box. 

The grates of the fuel-box (13) are inclined from back to 
front and have over them an arch of fire-brick (9) deflecting the 




FIG. 35, THE WRIGHT GARBAGE 1NCINERATORY FURNACE. 

flames from the fuel-box downward to the garbage below, and 
also by the radiated heat above the arch assist in the combustion 
of the gases passing through the flue (10) downward between the 
walls of the furnaces and backward to the main central flue ( 1 1 ) 
leading to the chimney. There is provided a hinged iron plat- 
form or plate (17) between the fire-bars and the foot of the in- 
clined drying hearth, for removal of ashes, and a similar arrange- 
ment at the front end of the grates, where coal is employed for 
fuel. This furnace may be fired by any oil or gas, through 
burners above the fuel box. 



DISPOSAL BY CREMATORIES AND INCINERATORS. 165 

There is also provided a forced draft of steam or air under 
the fire-bars, and a special set of dumping grates for the clinkers 
and ashes. The construction of this incinerator is always upon 
the double-cell principle. Though both cells are recorded as one 
furnace, each may be separately operated. In the experimental 
furnace erected for a trial of this system a steam boiler was 
placed in connection with the main flue, and about seventy-five 
horsepower was developed and maintained. This experimental 
furnace was not continued. The special features of this in- 
cinerator are the serrated surface of the drying hearth, which 
retains the liquids and decomposes the garbage; the high tem- 
perature and consequently complete destruction of the waste, and 
the cell form of construction, which permits of the use of a 
greater or lesser number of furnaces, according to the seasonal 
collection of waste. 

The only example of this incinerator now operating is at the 
''Bridewell," Chicago, in use since 1899, having a rated capacity 
of thirty tons per day. 

The construction of the Wright garbage incinerating furnaces 
is in the control of the Standard Construction Company, Chi- 
cago, 111. 

NATIONAL EQUIPMENT COMPANY AND THE BRANCH INCIN- 
ERATOR. 

Mr. Joseph G. Branch, M.E., St. Louis, Mo., has brought out 
many valuable inventions in various lines of mechanical equip- 
ments and apparatus for industrial uses. He is also the patentee 
of the Branch garbage incinerator (patented November 21, 1905), 
a furnace for the disposal of garbage and refuse. This may be 
built in several sizes and combinations, but all follow the same 
type of construction. 

The incinerator is of a single unit or furnace, in exterior 
dimensions and appearance similar to the general form of the 
American crematories. The furnaces are inclosed in a steel ex- 
terior casing strengthened by stays and tie rods in the usual man- 
ner. There are three charging ports on the top for garbage and 
one large circular opening for carcasses. The chimney is at the 
rear end, connected by flues with the furnaces, or placed beyond 
the battery of boilers if these are employed. There are two fire- 



i66 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

boxes, one above the other, with the usual fire bars and ash pit. 
The garbage charged through the ports in the top is received 
in a V-shaped basket formed of hollow water grates connected 
on the upper ends to headers, on the sides of the incinerating 
chamber, and tapped by threaded screw joints at the lower ends 
into a single large header placed in the middle line of the cham- 
ber. The headers and the water grates form a circulating water 
system, intended for heating feed water for the boilers when 




FIG. 36. BRANCH GARBAGE INCINERATOR. 

used. Below this garbage grate is an iron evaporating pan to 
receive the liquids. At the sides of the incinerator are two chutes 
of steel which receive very wet portions of waste and are con- 
nected at their lower ends with the evaporating pan, forming a 
part of the lower hearth. Doors are provided for firing the two 
fuel boxes, stoking the garbage in the central chamber and for 
removing ashes. 

The secondary fire for destroying gases is omitted. There 



DISPOSAL BY CREMATORIES AND INCINERATORS. 167 

is an offset or break in the rear of the furnace, by means of 
which the unconsumed gases from the upper and cooler compart- 
ment are brought down into the hotter and larger furnace com- 
partment below, where they are mingled and consumed before 
being discharged into the chimney or under the boilers, when 
these are used. 

The advantages claimed for this incinerator are: no odors or 
dust, no sorting or handling of waste, no auxiliary furnace or 
checkerwork needed, no firebrick for garbage grates, no uneven 
distribution of heat in the furnace, the fewest number of threaded 
joints of piping exposed to the fire, no water jackets or stay 
bolts, a complete and positive circulation through water grates 
and ease of access at all times. When the units are arranged in 
pairs the increased length of travel given to the heated gases 
insure better combustion and higher temperature under the 
boilers. 

Since the invention of this incinerator only one experimental 
plant has been put into operation, and no municipal plants are 
yet built. There are as yet no records of experimental trials, and 
but little is known as to the powers of the incinerator in the 
actual municipal disposal work. 



CHAPTER VIII. 

AMERICAN GARBAGE CREMATORIES Continued. 

AMERICAN GARBAGE CREMATOR Co. AND MR. SAMUEL G. BROWN, 

BOSTON. 

Early in 1893 the City Council of Boston, Mass., appointed a 
committee to examine into the subject of garbage disposal with 
instructions to report upon the methods in use elsewhere and 
their adaptability for that city. This committee held meetings 
at which several of the representatives of reduction and crema- 
tion companies were present, and described their systems and 
apparatus. Afterwards the committee made an extensive tour 
for the inspection of these methods as employed in other cities. 

For the purpose of demonstrating the efficiency of the furnace 
of the American Garbage Cremator Company, of Boston, Mr. S. 
G. Brown designed and erected an experimental plant upon the 
city's ground at Albany street, which was operated for some time 
in March and April, 1893. 




FIG. 37. THE BROWN GARBAGE CREMATOR. 

The Brown Cremator, Fig. 37, was 28^ feet long, 9 feet wide 
and 6y 2 feet high. The exterior casing, of steel plates, was 
bound together with buckstays and tie rods. The interior was 
lined with fire brick with a flat arched roof of two parallel arches 
of fire brick with air space. The furnace was divided by a 
longitudinal horizontal iron grate, the bars of which were A- 
shaped, hollow, triangular sections 10 inches high. The hollow 
spaces of these bars were filled with a refractory metallic com- 

168 



DISPOSAL BY CREMATORIES AND INCINERATORS. 169 

position, the secret of the inventor. Below this grate a longi- 
tudinal bridge wall divided the lower compartment into two equal 
chambers, or long flues, which connected with the chimney. 

At the rear end, on the same plane with the grates, was a 
brick chamber that contained the oil burner for generating heat. 
This burner consisted of three concentric pipes, the innermost, of 
small dimensions, carrying steam ; the second conveying the oil, 
and the third larger outer one containing hot gases drawn from 
the lower heated flues of the chimney. 

The simultaneous discharge from these pipes converted the oil 
to gas, and, mixing this with the hot gases from the flues, formed 
a new combustible gas, which was assisted by transverse currents 
of heated air from the air spaces of the roof and sides of the 
furnace. 

By the force of the blast, this was driven over a transverse 
bridge wall onto the garbage piled upon the grates, and, passing 
the length of the furnace, was returned through the lower flues 
to the chimney. The blast was maintained by a blower driven 
by a separate small steam boiler fired with coal. 

The operation of this furnace the first to attempt the de- 
struction of garbage by liquid fuel attracted attention, and was 
tested by the City Engineers, and temperatures were recorded by 
Professors Holman and Wendell of the Massachusetts Institute 
of Technology. 

At the final trial, April 25, 1893, the following reports were 
tabulated by the city authorities : 

TEST OF BROWN'S CREMATOR, BOSTON, APRIL 25, 1893. 

Time occupied 10 hours 

Garbage consumed 19 \ tons 

Garbage consumed per hour 1.95 tons 

Area of garbage grates 60 square feet 

Quantity consumed per square feet grate per hour 65 pounds 

Oil consumed, 10 hours 323 gallons 

Oil consumed per hour 32.3 gallons 

Coal used in steam boiler 400 pounds 

Labor (i engineer, i stoker, 2 laborers), per hour $1.00 

Total cost per hour, labor and fuel $2.39 

Cost per ton garbage consumed $1.22 

Weight of ash residuum 1085 pounds 

Weight of ash per ton garbage 55 pounds 

Temperature near bridge wall, first trial 2580 Fah. 

Temperature near bridge wall, second trial 2460 Fah. 

Temperature outer end of furnace 1850 Fah. 

Temperature opening in top of furnace 1760 Fah. 

Temperature flue gases 1680 Fah. 



170 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

So far as known this was the only official report of garbage 
disposal by liquid fuels where the temperatures were accurately 
recorded. The operation of the furnace was at a higher cost than 
similar work at the Chicago Exposition by an Engle Cremator, 
where the expense for T abor and fuel was 63 cents per ton. 

The Brown Cremator was built at Wilmington, Del. (1894), 
with the double exterior water-jacket casing, the first recorded 
instance of this form in American practice. 

Because of the expense of operation, using oil as fuel, this 
crematory was dicontinued in 1897. The Brown cremator was 
built at Troy, N. Y., and Washington, D. C., but all are now 
discontinued. Petroleum is an ideal fuel for garbage disposal 
work, but too expensive for use unless at the points where the 
oil is procured direct from the ground. 

In 1900, Mr. Brown took out patents for a cremator of nearly 
similar construction, using coal as fuel, but there are no records 
of installations in this form. The American Garbage Cremator 
Company did not continue the Brown furnaces after the Wash- 
ington, D. C., installation. 

BROWNLEE GARBAGE FURNACE. 

In 1891, Mr. Alex. Brownlee, of Dallas, Tex., formerly a 
representative of the Engle Company, procured a patent, No. 
448,115, for a garbage furnace, under which he built several 
furnaces in Texas. Subsequently, in 1895, he took out another 
patent for an improved form of this crematory, the chief installa- 
tion being at West New Brighton, Saten Island, N. Y. 

This furnace, Fig. 38, follows closely the form and construc- 
tion of the Engle cremator, being almost exactly identical in 
exterior dimensions and differing slightly in interior arrangement. 
There is the large upper combustion chamber (B), charged 
through circular opening in the roof (D), the transverse longi- 
tudinal garbage grates (C), and the fireboxes (H) at each end 
of the grates. Below the grates is an enclosed pit (G), filled for 
half its depth with sand to catch and retain the liquids dripping 
through the garbage grate, and provided with drainage pipes. 

Below this sand box is a lower flue (I), at the end of which 
is the passage to the chimney (I 1 ). The third fire for consuming 



DISPOSAL BY CREMATORIES AND INCINERATORS. 



171 



the gases is at some point in this flue or outside at the chimney 
connection. 

The grate bars (C) are hollow iron pipes, supported in their 
middle line by a larger pipe, the whole system of piping being 
connected with an exterior tank or boiler (F) ? which provides for 
a continuous water circulation through all the grates exposed to 
the fire. 

The flames and heat from the main firebox (H 1 ) pass over 
the garbage, are reinforced at the second firebox (H 2 ), and pass 
under trie grates and over the sand pit, thence through the open- 
ing (I) to the flues (I 1 ), and over the third firebox to the 
chimney. The usual doors for stoking and ash removal are 
provided. 




FIG. 38. THE BROWNLEE GARBAGE FURNACE. 

In practical operation of this crematory it was found hard 
to secure the passage of the smoke through the tortuous flues 
to the chimney, and still more difficult to obtain the temperature 
for perfect combustion because of the loss of heat taken up by the 
water grates. In one instance the furnace was discontinued by 
legal proceedings because of nuisance from the stack caused by 
incomplete combustion. There is now but one example of the 
Brownlee crematory operating, and this has been radically changed 
in construction from the plans and inventions of the original 
builders. 



172 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

BRIDGEPORT BOILER WORKS, AND MR. H? B. SMITH OF BRIDGE- 
PORT, CONN. 

This invention is another example of a garbage furnace with 
water grates for receiving the garbage and of alternate action 
in passing the heat from one to the other of the chambers. The 
crematory was first built at Waterbury, Conn., in 1901, and has 
been intermittently used since then. The largest installation made 
by the Bridgeport Boiler Works, who were the builders under the 
patents of Mr. H. B. Smith, was at Newport News, Va., in 1902. 

The crematory (Fig. 39) comprises two seperate chambers, 
connected by a flue or opening for the passage of the gases, from 




FIG. 39. CREMATORY OF H. B. SMITH, BRIDGEPORT, CONN. 

one to the other alternately. In each chamber is suspended a 
cage or basket made of hollow iron piping, with larger pipes at the 
top and bottom. This basket receives the garbage through cir- 
cular opening in the roof. The cages are set away from the 
walls to form a passage to permit the passage of the flames around 
and over the cages and their charges of garbage, and their final 
exit through the opening (26) into the second chamber, where, 
after passing around and over the baskets, the gases descend 
through the second fire-box (20) to the lower flue (26) to the 
chimney. The pipes of each set of baskets are connected with 
headers and these with a water tank or exterior boiler, which 



DISPOSAL BY CREMATORIES AND INCINERATORS. 173 

maintains a circulation of water through the system of piping. 
There are provided doors (35) for stoking or stirring the garbage, 
and a series of iron rods (18) between the lower tier of garbage 
pipes, which may be drawn, permitting the dried charge of 
garbage to fall into the fire-box (13) and be consumed. 

The theory of this furnace is the alternate firing of the cham- 
bers, the heating and drying of the charge of garbage by the 
iron pipes of the basket, and the combustion of the waste without 
the need of a secondary stench-cremating fire. 

The installation at Newport News did not fulfill the conditions 
of the contract and was not accepted by the city. No other ex- 
amples of the H. B. Smith furnace, except at Waterbury and 
Newport News, have been built. 

WATER GRATES. 

In addition to the furnaces already described (Decarie, Branch, 
Brown, Brownlee and Smith), there are some seven or eight 
others which include water bars as an important part of the 
construction. These are mostly examples of patents, only one or 
two having reached the stage of experimental construction. 

Besides those, six or seven other inventions have been brought 
out for small water heaters and refuse consumers, using this 
prinicple of water grates. For the disposal of small amounts of 
dry combustible refuse this form of small furnace is used in many 
installations, but they are not so successful when wet masses of 
garbage are to be burned, since the maintenance of the tempera- 
ture to destroy the garbage requires large amounts of fuel, and 
there is no provision for consuming the smoke and gases of com- 
bustion, threatening a discharge of noxious fumes from the 
chimney. 

The Cragin, Dube, Long, and other refuse burners and water 
heaters are used in apartment houses and dwellings, and in a 
limited way are quite successful, but this method is distinctly 
confined to individual small installations for private work, and in 
no sense can be considered as a plant for municipal service. 
Several of these water heaters have the double water jacket con- 
nected with the hollow pipe grate, forming a circulatory system 
for the protection of the parts, but owing to the loss of heat taken 
up by the water their power as garbage burners is very limited. 



174 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OE MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

SMITH-SIEMENS GARBAGE FURNACE AND MR. M. V. SMITH OF 

PITTSBURG. 

One of the earliest furnaces for garbage and night-soil dis- 
posal was that invented by Mr. M. V. Smith in 1885, at Wheeling, 
W. Va. The history of the first furnace of this type has been 
briefly alluded to. 

The subsequent installations of Mr. Smith were in many 
particulars different from the early forms, and as built at Phila- 
delphia and Atlantic City it was one of the most interesting and, 
in a way, successful attempts to cremate larger amounts of 
garbage than had been heretofore deal with. 




FIG. 40. SECTION. 




FIG. 40. SMITH-SIEMENS GARBAGE FURNACE, PLAN. 



DISPOSAL BY CREMATORIES AND INCINERATORS. 175 

The Smith-Siemens garbage furnace (Fig. 40) was an imitation 
or modification of the Siemens process for attaining high tem- 
peratures in the work of iron manufacture. . There are three 
distinct constructions, which together formed the complete ap- 
paratus. 

These were (Fig. 40, plan) (a-b) the two garbage furnaces, 
the two regenerators (d-e), and the gas producer (f). Each 
of these separate constructions consisted of a steel exterior cir- 
cular wall, which was lined with fire brick, and all were con- 
nected by a system of flues, controlled by dampers. The garbage 
chamber is charged through the roof, the waste falling on the 
bottom, and forms a conical pile. There are doors, through which 
the mass may be stirred, and at the bottom is a discharge spout 
(a 1 ), which is opened for drawing of the liquids and afterward the 
slag, or residual products, from the chamber. 

The regenerator chambers (d-e) are filled with checker work 
of fire brick and provided with flues (d^e 1 ) leading downward, 
so as to throw the flames directly upon the mass of garbage in the 
chamber (a). From the base of each regenerator is an air flue 
(d 2 -e 2 ), connecting into a common chamber, which is provided 
with a reversible valve. These flues are also connected with the 
escape flue (i), which leads to the stack or chimney (L). 

The producer (f) is provided with charging ports, through 
which the coal is passed for conversion into gas, and also has a 
garbage port which may receive waste for conversion into gas. 
There are valves and dampers to regulate and cut off the flow of 
gas and air, the purpose being to produce the gas for combustion 
from the garbage itself when the proper temperatures are reached. 

The operation is begun by starting a fire in the gas producer, 
and as soon as gas is generated it is fed through the main gas 
flue (n) to the distributing chamber and by the flues (T 1 ) is 
carried to one of the garbage chambers (a 1 ). On its passage it 
receives the air from the regenerator and combustion takes place 
within the garbage chamber. From the chamber (a 1 ) the heat 
passes into the adjoining chamber (a) to the second regenerator 
(d) and from this through the air flue to the stack. 

When the garbage in the first chamber is consumed the action 
is reversed, the gas then flowing through the ducts from the 
producer to the furnace (a), thence to the second furnace, which 



176 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

has meanwhile received a fresh charge, and through the first 
regenerator (e) to the chimney. It is claimed that when the 
highest temperatures are reached the garbage alone will produce 
the gas for its own combustion, with little or no assistance from 
the producer, but this seems to occur only when the garbage is 
comparatively dry and contains little mosture. During the opera- 
tion of this furnace in Philadelphia and Atlantic City the repairs 
necessary for maintaining the complicated apparatus, exposed to 
very high temperatures, were made at a very considerable cost. 

SEABOARD GARBAGE CREMATOR Co. AND MR. A. VIVARTTAS, NEW 

YORK CITY. 

One of the early furnaces for disposal of waste was invented 
by Mr. Aloha Vivarttas, of New York, who in 1887 built a large 
plant at East Seventeenth street, New York, under the style and 
title of the Seaboard Garbage Furnace Company, Patent No. 
390,922, October, 1888. 

This was the first furnace of its kind in New York City and 
was intended for the disposal of all classes of waste then col- 
lected together ashes, garbage and refuse which was then 
dumped at sea. 

The furnace of Mr. Vivarttas, Fig. 41, was very high in pro- 
portion to the length and width, the exterior walls of the usual 
construction, the interior of fire clay, brick, and tiles. The top 
charging ports (a 1 ) discharge into small chambers inclined from 
the middle line to the furnace walls, and terminating in a chute 
(a 3 ) controlled by a sliding fire clay dumper (H 2 ). This upper 
chamber is then discharged upon a lower drying hearth (D 1 ), 
inclined at a sharp angle in the opposite direction from the one 
above. Thus there was formed an interior drying and burning 
chamber (B) of large capacity, into which all the smaller cham- 
bers above discharge, and in which the final combustion was 
made. The sides of this middle chamber (B), inclined to the 
center, led the ashes and residuals of combustion down to a 
throat (D 1 ) or narrow flue, floored with water grates, below 
which the ashes are removed. 

The two fire-boxes (F F 1 ) are supplied with coal, the heat 
passing under the inclined hearth of the burning chamber and 
through narrow passages behind the smaller charging chambers, 



DISPOSAL BY CREMATORIES AND INCINERATORS. 



177 



and then downward through the four downtakes (B 1 ) to the 
chimney, by underground passages. In this New York installa- 
tion there was also a conveyor for receiving the mixed refuse and 
ashes and passing this through a water bath to separate the 
heavy and lighter portions before charging into the furnace. 




FIG. 41. VIVARTTAS GARBAGE FURNACE. 

But the conditions attending this disposal of mixed waste by 
fire were not then well understood. It was found impossible to 
produce and maintain combustion in the central burning chamber, 
there was poor provision for the removal of residuals, the furnace 
construction was too weak to stand the strain, and after many 



178 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

vain efforts to continue operation the attempt was abandoned in 
1888. 

Subsequently Mr. S. R. Smith, of Plainfield, N. J., became 
manager for this company and installed plants in Philadelphia, 
Plainfield, Scranton, and Fort Wayne, Ind. Three of these were 
in service for two to three years, but at this time none are operat- 
ing. 

DECARIE MANUFACTURING COMPANY. 

The Decarie Incinerator was the invention of Mr. F. L. De- 
carie, of Montreal, Canada, in 1897. The original invention, 
described in U. S. Patent No. 596,421, was probably the most 
complicated apparatus yet devised for the destruction of munici- 
pal waste. There is no record of this ever having been used in 
the original form. About June, 1901, Mr. Decarie applied for 
another patent which was issued January 12, 1904, No. 749,269. 
This is the basis of the present form of this incinerator, though 
many changes are made in the latest constructions. 

Two forms of furnaces were included in this plant, alike in 
exterior dimensions but differing in interior details. The first 
is an incinerating chamber, with interior length about twice 
its width and height. These exterior walls are of brick built and 
stayed in the usual manner. The floor of this chamber is a series 
of heavy firegrates, supported on bearing bars, with an ash-pit 
beneath, the bottom of which is a shallow double- jacketed iron 
pan, holding water. 

The walls of the incinerating chamber support a shallow rect- 
angular iron box or "steam generator," covering all the roof of 
the chamber. Above this box is another of a larger capacity, also 
of iron, and provided on the top with four charging ports, with 
covers. One large charging hole extends through the drying 
chamber and the steam generator to the incinerating chamber 
below; the others do not connect with the incinerating chamber, 
but discharge into the drying chamber only. This generator is 
made after the usual boiler construction, with a multiplicity of 
stay-bolts and provided with pipes for steam and water supply. 
The garbage grates are a series of hollow pipes connected at 
their upper ends by screw-threaded joints tapped into the bottom 
plate of the generator. The grates describe a curve or incline 
to the middle of the lower part of the incinerating chamber, 



DISPOSAL BY CREMATORIES AND INCINERATORS. 



179 



where they are connected with one large header, just above the 
fire bars. These grates form a basket to hold the garbage 
charged through the generator, but are placed on the sides. The 
circulating system includes the steam generator, the water grates, 
the headers, and the double steel outer water-jacket, which is 
sometimes used instead of the brick walls, the purpose of this 




FIG. 42. THE DECARIE GARBAGE INCINERATOR. 

water system being to preserve the iron parts from destruction 
by the heat from the fires below. In some constructions the roof 
of the furnace is of fire-brick, and the generator is replaced by 
two large headers at the upper corners of the chamber. 

In the other form described in the patent, the brick construc- 
tion for the exterior walls is replaced by a double steel casing, 
secured by many hundreds of stay-bolts and connected with the 
water circulating system. 

A later form of construction is shown by Fig. 42, and is 
similar in exterior dimensions to those previously noted, with 



180 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

some interior changes. Here the steam generator is made deeper 
and occupies all the space above the incinerating chamber, leaving 
out the drying chamber altogether. The charging holes on top 
extend completely through the generator, but are placed on the 
sides. On the outside of the sides and ends are smaller charging 
chutes, for very wet material, the liquids from which are con- 
ducted to the evaporating pan under the ash-pit. 

The garbage grates are inclined from the middle line of the 
steam generator, where their upper ends are tapped into the 
bottom sheet, to the headers along the sides of the chamber. 




FIG. 43. THE DECARIE FUME CREMATOR. 

There is a union or connection in these pipes and a short level 
section of piping just before the connection with the headers. 

These grates, inclined from the middle of the generator to the 
furnace walls, from a basket of iron pipes, enclosing a triangular 
space, which receives the garbage charged through the holes 
above. All the parts that will admit of it are of hollow iron 
spaces with water circulation, somewhat resembling a magnified 
locomotive steam boiler. The partially dried garbage which is 
confined within the suspending basket, may be mechanically stoked 
down into the fires below by bars thrust through the stoke-holes 
in the walls of the furnace at various points. To reach the inner 



DISPOSAL BY CREMATORIES AND INCINERATORS. 



181 



surfaces of the basket the rakes must be thrust through doors 
on the opposite sides of the furnace, or through the larger doors 
at the front and rear ends. There are upwards of forty doors 
and openings of various sizes in each incinerator and fume 
cremator of 50 tons capacity. 

To consume the gases and products of combustion there is, 
in the latest forms, a "fume cremator" (Fig. 43), placed between 
the incinerator and the chimney. This is a separate brick chamber 
enclosed in steel plate with many doors for removal of ashes, 




FIG. 44. THE LATEST DECARIE INCINERATOR. 

supply of fuel and water. The gases from the incinerator first 
pass through a perforated brick partition, then into a descending 
flue floored with a water tank, then between two fuel boxes, 
are then deflected upwards by the bridge well and downward 
by the hanging wall, passing over the surface of the two water 
tanks and through the curtain, or scrubber, of water or steam 
from the perforated pipes to the chimney. This complicated 



1 82 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

arrangement of walls and water tanks is necessary to arrest the 
flying particles of paper and dust, and to reheat and reburn the 
carbon in the smoke and gasses of the combustion products from 
the incinerator. 

The latest form of the Decarie incinerator is wholly of an all- 
steel water- jacketed design, with double shell throughout, and 
water-jacketed crown and steam space. The arrangement of the 
charging hoppers permits dry rubbish to be charged in front, 
the heavy ordinary garbage to be charged through the top hop- 
pers, and the storage of very wet material in the side hoppers, 
which are provided with facilities for draining off the liquids 
before discharging on to the upper grates. The evaporating pan 
below the fire bars is for the disposal of these liquids by steam 
jets turned into the evaporating steel pan, the vapors passing 
up through the fire bars. There is also what is termed an ex- 
tension fuel grate placed at the front, provided with two grates 
constituting an up-and-down draft fire-box, which may, on oc- 
casion, assist in the more rapid evaporation of the liquids. The 
gas consuming chamber is connected with the main garbage 
chamber by heavy continuous steel construction, and forms a part 
of the complete incinerator, instead of being a separate construc- 
tion, as previously used. 

DUNDON IRON WORKS, OF SAN FRANCISCO, AND THE DUNDON 

GARBAGE INCINERATOR, AT SACRAMENTO, CAL. . 
In 1905 a plant was erected at Sacramento, Cal., by the Dundon 
Iron Works, of San Francisco. The original designs were fur- 
nished by the Mildrum Bros., of England, but these were changed 
in many essential features, and it was built quite different from 
the plans of the patentees. It was claimed that this furnace 
failed to meet the conditions of the contract, and it was not ac- 
cepted by the city. No other installation of the Dundon Excelsior 
Garbage Incinerator has as yet been made. 

BENNETT GARBAGE CREMATORY, ELMIRA, N. Y., AND WILKES- 

BARRE, PENN. 

The Bennett Garbage Disposal Company is capitalized under 
the laws of the State of Pennsylvania, and collects and disposes of 
street sweepings, garbage, ashes and refuse, junk, dead animals 
and other waste matters. Its capital is $35,000. This company 



DISPOSAL BY CREMATORIES AND INCINERATORS. 183 

has been given franchises at Elmira and Wilkes-Barre for terms 
of ten years. At Wilkes-Barre the collections are to be made 
from the household in garbage cans of a uniform size to be 
furnished by the company, transported upon special platform 
wagons. The company has certain protective rights against com- 
petitors for collection, and gets its remuneration from the house- 
holder at a rate fixed by ordinance. The householder pays 15 
cents per can, and the disposal of larger amounts is subject to 
special prices and discounts. 

The disposal stations as described by Mr. Bennett will consist 
of modern fireproof buildings designed to meet the most dis- 
criminating laws of sanitation in the handling and disposal of 
the various kinds of garbage, with entire freedom from objection- 
able odors of any kind/' 

SANITARY ENGINEERING COMPANY. 

This corporation in 1904 acquired the property and patents of 
the Municipal Engineering Company, the principal stockholders 
being Col. Young, Mr. F. Nevins and Capt. Wm. M. Venable. 
They secured a patent (830,027, September 4, 1906) for an 
"improvement .in crematories, in which garbage or refuse is 
burned on grates with an updraft, either with or without previous 
drying." 

In exterior dimensions and construction this furnace (Fig. 45) 
was nearly the same as the other, though the exterior walls may 
be of brick construction if desired. The garbage is charged 
through the ports (4) and is received on the iron drying floor 
formed of a series of hollow triangular cast-iron grates (11-12- 
13). Beneath these are a number of fire-boxes (5), separated by 
bridge walls of fire brick extending below to the bottom of the 
furnace to form ash pits. 

A flue or passage (10) connects with a secondary chamber for 
combustion of the gases (9), above which is a space (19) for 
receiving the heated air generated in the hollow grates of the 
drying floor and the air spaces at the sides of the lining. The 
chimney is connected with the secondary consuming chamber, 
which in the larger construction is supplied with a fuel grate. 

Doors are provided for the fires and ash pits and for stoking 
the garbage on the drying floor. The grates may be rotated 



184 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

from the outside of the casing to assist in the stoking and drying 
process. 

The operation of this crematory is somewhat complicated, 
depending upon the passage of the currents of air heated by 



viv y iwyi v.,vi>y.viv v 




FIG. 45. THE CREMATORY OF THE SANITARY ENGINEERING CO. 

passing through the hollow grates, and their introduction into the 
space (19) above the secondary combustion chamber, from which 
they are passed through the openings (20) to the upper consum- 
ing chamber. The special features are the hollow prismatic air- 
cooled grates, forming the drying floor, and below, the indepen- 
dent fire-boxes, for the partially dried garbage and for fuel to 
complete combustion. The only construction of this furnace is at 
Fort Barancas, Fla. No municipal plant has yet been built under 
this patent. 

GARBAGE CREMATORY OF MESSRS. LEWIS & KITCHEN AND FRED 
P. SMITH, OF CHICAGO. 

The inventions of Mr. F. P. Smith for the disposal of municipal 
waste are marked by versatility and bold designs. There are 
several forms of fire closets, incinerators and furnaces under his 
patents, some of which have been built by the United States 
Government and by private contractors. In 1904, as engineer 
for Messrs. Lewis & Kitchen, he designed and built at Fort Sam 
Houston, Texas, a new form of crematory, which was also in- 
stalled at Fort Dupont, Del., 1906, and which is described in the 
Engineering World, Chicago, as follows (Fig. 46) : 



DISPOSAL BY CREMATORIES AND INCINERATORS. 



Garbage and refuse is dumped from sanitary carts upon a steel platform, 
whence it is thrown upon the garbage grates above the incinerating fires. 
When the garbage is dried and is partially burned upon the upper grates 
of clay, it is stoked to the lower grates for final combustion and to become 
the fuel for the drying of the succeeding charges of wet garbage. Fumes 
are destroyed and dust is arrested in the chamber at the base of the 
chimney. Air for combustion is heated before admission to the furnace 
by heavily flanged castings, which form the sides of the fire-boxes and the 
evaporating floors. 




FIG. 46. PLAN OF SMITH CREMATORY OF LEWIS & KITCHEN. 

The exterior is constructed of cast-iron sections with heavily reinforced 
flanges. The lining is of fire clay bricks with molded refractory clay 
blocks for the openings of doors and garbage hoppers. The garbage grates 
are of refractory fire brick. 

This description does not clearly explain the construction or 
work of this furnace. 

Fig. 47, of a crematory of larger capacity, shows more clearly 
the plan. The outer wall is of sectional cast iron flanged divi- 
sions, held by bolts and presumed to be rigid and strong enough to 
hold the thrust of the fire pressure. The interior lining is of 
sections of fire-clay tile, corresponding in size to the exterior 
casing, and having an air space next to this. The grates are heavy 
blocks of fire-clay, spaced to permit passage of garbage, and 
carried by projection of the interior lining. These bars are 10 x 
10 inches in cross section and 6 feet in length, weighing upwards 
of 500 pounds each. The arrangement in two horizontal planes 



i86 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

at different heights, with intervals between, is a novel departure 
from the usual methods. 

. The lower division of the furnace is a series of cast-iron 
evaporating platforms, alternating with transverse fuel-boxes, 
and so placed below the garbage grates to receive the partly dried 
waste, the liquid falling upon the evaporating surfaces. 

The secondary fire is placed in the combustion chamber at 
the base of the stack. The exterior casing is pierced at intervals 
for air inlets, and the doors are arranged for stoking and firing 




FIG. 47. LONGITUDINAL SECTION, F. P. SMITH CREMATORY. 

in the usual way. The larger sizes have four charging ports, one 
being large enough for a large carcass. 

The operation of this crematory is somewhat complicated. By 
reason of the longitudinal division wall the crematory is divided 
into two furnaces, alike in construction, and so arranged with 
connecting flues and dampers that the heat from fuel-boxes may 
be directed over either upper compartment and return above or 
below the adjoining compartment, passing finally through the 
common combustion chamber to the chimney. This action is 
assisted by the currents of heated air from the hollow fire-grates, 
and from a special heating device placed under the evaporating 
platforms. 

The constructions described in Figs. 46 and 47 were those 
employed by Mr. Smith up to 1906. During this time no munici- 
pal plant was built by Messrs. Lewis & Kitchen under the Smith 



DISPOSAL BY CREMATORIES AND INCINERATORS. 



i8 7 



patents, but four or five small crematories for government use 
were installed at several army posts. 

The next installations showed a radical change in the use of 
material for the inner linings and grates. The cast-iron evaporat- 
ing surfaces were abandoned, the double form of furnace changed 
for a single unit which was made longer and wider than before, 
and in which the garbage grates were made of heavy blocks of 
fire clay and the iron evaporating surfaces replaced by the hollow 
cast-iron revolving bars. The name incinerator was used to de- 
scribe the furnace as distinguished from the term garbage crema- 
tory previously employed. 

Fig. 48 the longitudinal section of one of the latest incinera- 
tors shows the present construction. The furnace is charged 




FIG. 48. LONGITUDINAL SECTION OF LATEST SMITH INCINERATOR. 

through side ports on the top, the carts dumping the loads 
through large openings directly to the upper tier of garbage 
grates, which is called "the primary garbage grate." When the 
charge is dried out it is stoked through open passages and around 
the ends of this upper grate to the "secondary garbage grate," 
where final combustion is made. There are four principal fire- 
boxes for fuel, and two secondary boxes floored with revolving 
hollow cast-iron bars, called the clinkering grates. 

The theory of the combustion is that the heat generated from 
fuel in the two fire-boxes at either end of the furnace (Nos. i 
and 2) must first pass over the clinkering grates, then upwards 
around the ends of the upper grates, meeting in the two openings 
or passages through this upper grate and passing downward 
along the upper side of the secondary grate and turning again 
downward, pass over the fire-box No. 3 on its way to the chimney 



1 88 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

flue placed below the level of the floor. The heat from the second 
left hand fire-box (No. 4) is added to the other two boxes when 
required. 

The division of the upper grate into two unequal parts is for 
the purpose of burning a small amount of waste on the left 
hand division, when the whole area of the furnace is not needed 
for so small a quantity. The arrows show the direction of the 
gases from the primary fires. To distinguish the fire grates, these 
are numbered i, 2, 3, and 4; the clinkering grates lettered A 
and B. 

The stoking or moving of the charge is done through five doors 
on the upper grate, six doors on the lower tier and two doors 
on the floor line. Stoking may also be done through the charging 
ports from the top of the furnace. 

The Interior Walls of this incinerator are formed of heavy 
sections of fire clay, the dimensions of each corresponding to the 
sections of cast-iron which form the exterior shell of the furnace. 
These sections of fire clay and iron must be of the same dimen- 
sions to permit the unbolting and removal of the cast-iron section, 
and then the removal of the interior fire-clay section to take out 
any one of the garbage grates which may have been broken. 

These garbage grates are blocks of fire clay 6 to 8 feet long 
and 8 by 10 inches in cross section. They are not arched, but 
depend for their strength upon their size and thickness. Because 
of their dimensions and weight (each grate bar weighing 400 to 
500 Ibs. ) they cannot be replaced when broken except by removing 
the top of the furnace or a cast-iron section of the sides and the 
corresponding interior fire-clay section of the wall, which will 
give an opening through which the broken grate bars of the lower 
tier may be withdrawn and new ones substituted. 

The Fig. 48 shows the construction of the garbage grates to 
have eight exposed edges over which the heat must pass, turning 
a right angle in each case, and also over which the charge of 
garbage when dried on the primary or upper grate must be 
stoked down to the secondary grate or to the clinker boxes. 
There are then eight hanging fire-brick bars unsupported on one 
side, over which liquids, metals and incombustible matters must 
pass, besides being exposed to action of slice bars and rakes used 
to move the dried charge. 



DISPOSAL BY CREMATORIES AND INCINERATORS. 



iBg 



This construction provides for a series of blocks of fire clay 
of heavy cross section, placed side by side horizintally from 
one wall to the other across the furnace, forming a platform 16 




FIG. 49. CROSS-SECTION SMITH INCINERATOR. 




FIG. 49. EXTERIOR SMITH INCINERATOR. 

feet long and 6 feet wide, which is to carry a weight of five tons 
of garbage with the lower surface exposed to a temperature of 
1,500 degrees or upwards. This same construction is repeated in 
the secondary garbage grate with greater risk, as these grates are 
directly over the two fire-boxes, 3 and 4. Fig. 49. 



190 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

The upper surface of the grates which receive the charge of 
garbage direct from the collection carts must, at times, be covered 
with saturated garbage containing 60 to 70 per cent, of water. 
If night-soil be charged into the furnace the liquid contained 
may be as high as 80 to 90 per cent. At the same time there must 
be a high temperature on the secondary grate, which radiates its 
heat to the under side of the grate above. If this be the case, there 
will be a condition of liquid saturation and consequent contrac- 
tion of the upper surface, and an expansion of the lower surface 
of the same bar or block caused by the high heats of the secondary 
grate. Heretofore it has been found very difficult to maintain 
garbage grate of double fire-clay blocks of short length dove- 
tailed together in the middle and arched to support the weight 
of the garbage charged from above. 

If fire-clay bars can be maintained in such a case as this and 
be found durable and efficient, it will be an advance in the art 
of using fire clay garbage grates such as has not been attained 
by any previous builders. The stability of this form of con- 
struction depends upon the garbage grates being able to maintain 
their place under all conditions of unequal and varying tempera- 
ture, and also be able to support the weight of five to eight tons 
of garbage received for one charge. 

The latest incinerators of this type are at Hattiesburg, Miss., 
Oak Park, 111., and at the U. S. Naval Training Station, New- 
port, R. I. 

The construction of the F. P. Smith crematories is carried on 
by the engineering firm of Lewis & Kitchen, Chicago, 111. 

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY, OF NEW YORK. 

In October, 1907, the city of Cambridge, Mass., advertised for 
bids for a refuse disposal plant to burn sixty tons of house ashes 
and refuse per day, no garbage being included. Upon a second 
advertisement the contract for the construction of the plant was 
awarded to a New York corporation under the title of the Public 
Service Company, at the price of $25,975. The plant included 
a brick building 60 x 65 feet, a radial brick stack 125 feet high, 
and a cremating furnace following the same lines of construction 
as that adopted at the refuse incinerator of the Railway Traffic 
Company, of Brooklyn. The special features of this construction 



DISPOSAL BY CREMATORIES AND INCINERATORS. 191 

include a long fire-box which is charged through four openings 
on the top of the furnace. About two feet above the fire-bars 
is a series of horizontal water-tube grates which receive the refuse 
thrown from above. There is a longitudinal fire brick bridge 
wall dividing the furnace into two equal cells, both of which are 
connected with the common combustion chamber. The rear 
end of the fire grates are inclined sharply upward, and behind 
them is placed a dust-receiving chamber to allow the settlement 
of light particles of unburned matter. From the combustion 
chamber the gases pass into a Sterling water-tube boiler of 200 
h.p. There is provided a fan driven by the steam power from 
the boiler, which conveys a current of air into the ash-pit under 
.the fire bars. The provisions of the contract call for the disposal 
of 60 tons of mixed ashes and refuse per day. At the first trial 
of the incinerator it was found impossible to consume this quan- 
tity within the require time. Subsequently, the collection service 
was changed, and a smaller amount of ashes brought for disposal. 
At the present time the city is reported to have accepted the plant. 
The power development from the amount of refuse burned at 
present is only sufficient for the operation of the plant itself. 

MORSE DESTRUCTOR FURNACE AND THE UNIVERSAL DESTRUCTOR 

COMPANY. 

In 1906 Mr. W. F. Morse obtained patents for certain new and 
useful improvements in garbage furnaces. In exterior propor- 
tions this invention follows closely those of the American type of 
furnace, as previously described. The Morse Destructor Furnace 
(Fig. 50) is charged from the top through circular holes with 
sliding fire clay covers. When desired it may also be fed through 
the large front doors. 

The interior arrangement provides for a primary fire-box (6) 
of greater or lesser dimensions, according to the material to be 
burned, with fire-bars inclined from *-ar to front. Behind the 
fire-bars are two drying and burning platforms of fire brick 
arches, arranged in an inclined position, the upper tier (i) be- 
ginning at the fire-bars (6) and gradually rising nearly to the 
arch of the furnace roof. 

Below this is a second platform, or closed curtain arch (n), 
that forms a flue (12) for the passage of the smoke and gases, 



192 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

and as this becomes incandescent it radiates the heat to the under 
side of the grates above, greatly aiding to dry out the moisture 
and increasing the combustion. 

Underneath this platform is an expanding chamber (9) tri- 
angular in shape, extending from the partition or bridge wall of 
the fuel box (13) to the curtain wall (21), which encloses the 




FIG. 50. THE MORSE DESTRUCTOR FURNACE. 

combustion chamber (18) and the secondary fire-box (17). 
Above the secondary fire-box in the combustion chamber is a 
series of transverse arched partitions perforated to admit free 
passage of the gasses. 

Below the floor of the expanding chamber (10) is a hot-air 
conduit. Through the cold-air inlets at the rear end of the 
furnace air is drawn by the action of the stack draft, or by a 
system of steam jet blowers into the space beneath the floor of the 
furnace. This air in its slow passage is raised in temperature 
by the radiated heat through the bottom of the furnace, and 
when brought under the bars of the primary fire-box the tem- 
perature is increased to upwards of 150 F. The blowers are 
connected with a steam jet from the boiler, which gives increased 
combustion in the material on the fire-bars above. 

The addition of this regenerating system of heating the air 
brought under the fire-bars of the primary fire is a means of in- 
creasing combustion not before recognized in American practice. 
This heated air may be increased to any desired pressure by 
means of the fan or steam jet, upon the well-known principle of 
the English destructors, and any proportions of mixed waste, 
garbage, ashes and refuse may be destroyed without change in the 
apparatus except by increasing the blast. 



DISPOSAL BY CREMATORIES AND INCINERATORS. 193 

The sloping platform, which gradually diminishes the area 
of the combustion grates, causes a more intimate contact with 
the heat, and greatly aids in the downward movement of the 
garbage to the fire-grate to form additional fuel. The delay 
of the gases in the expanding chamber permits the deposit of 
fine dust, which is withdrawn through doors on the bottom. 

At the top of this furnace above the combustion chamber, or 
at the side or back of this, may be placed a steam boiler of the 
vertical or water-tube type having its own independent fire-box, 
and so connected with the furnace by a system of flues and 
dampers that it may be operated altogether by the crematory, or 
partly or entirely by the heat from its own fuel box. By enlarg- 
ing or diminishing the area of either the primary fire or of the 
sloping garbage grilles the destructor may consume a larger 
proportion of either refuse or garbage as conditions may require. 

There is no iron surface exposed to the direct attack of the 
heat except the upper surface of the fire-bars of the primary 
and secondary fires. It is believed that the simplicity of con- 
struction, and the few essential elements, make it almost im- 
possible to get out of order or to be destroyed by high tempera- 
tures unless by gross carelessness. 

This destructor may be built in many forms and dimensions 
suited to the different kinds of waste and differing conditions 
of service. 

The present installations of the Morse Destructor are at the 
Government post, new Fort Lyon, Col., the Hudson Terminal 
Building, New York, with special installations at Loeser's Depart- 
ment Store. Brooklyn, in conjunction with two i5O-h.p. B. & W. 
steam boilers, and are so arranged that the power from one or 
both boilers may be utilized as desired. 

The Universal Destructor Company is the American repre- 
sentative and agent of Meldrum Brothers, Ltd., of Manchester, 
England, and controls the installation of the Morse Destructors 
and Meldrum Simplex Destructors and the Beaman and Deas 
Destructors in the United States, Canada, Mexico, the Central 
American States and Cuba. The Meldrum Destructors now oper- 
ating in this territory are described and illustrated in the chapter 
on British destructors in America. 



CHAPTER IX. 

AMERICAN GARBAGE CREMATORIES Continued. 
CALORIFIC VALUES OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

PORTABLE OR TRAVELING GARBAGE CREMATORIES. 

The idea of a garbage cremator that should come to the prem- 
ises, and not only take away, but destroy at once all useless matter, 
has been the dream of inventors. If such an apparatus could be 
made to work quickly, efficiently and without objectionable noise, 
odors, smoke or dust, there would be many advantages in its 
favor as against the prevailing methods of removal by collection 
carts. Some of the American cities have experimented with this 
form of garbage and refuse destroyer, but so far as known none 
are now employing a portable traveling furnace as a part of 
their disposal work. 

The first American Portable Garbage Incinerator appears to 
have been invented in 1895 by H. C. Fellenbaum, of Philadelphia. 
Patent 546,396, September, 1895. "The purpose of the inventor 
was threefold, to provide a compact, efficient incinerator which 
shall do its work without noise or noxious fumes, to so construct 
that it may be drawn or propelled to permit of the destruction 
as it is collected or while the apparatus is in motion, and to ar- 
range the various parts of the apparatus so they shall be pro- 
tected from injury by burning, bending or warping." There is 
a fire box of large capacity lined with firebrick. Above this are 
horizontal tubes forming a steam boiler, and above this, on the 
outside of the boiler casing, an engine connected with the steam 
pipes of the boiler. At the front end of the boiler tubes is a 
sloping platform of water pipes arranged to pass liquid to a 
chamber below. Above this platform is a set of circular revolv- 
ing cutters or knives, rotated by the engine, and above these 
knives is the hopper or bin for receiving the garbage. There is 
a hollow tube of large size extending through the length of the 

194 



DISPOSAL BY CREMATORIES AND INCINERATORS. 195 

machine, which contains a screw to move the finely divided par- 
ticles of garbage after passing the knives, drying the garbage in 
its passage and dropping it into the fire box to serve as fuel. 

The smokestack is at the front end, and may be telescopic, to 
permit its being raised above windows of adjoining houses. 
The incinerator is presumed to generate steam for operating the 
cutting knives, for driving the conveyor, and for power for its 
own locomotion. Oil burners are placed in the fire box to begin 
the work or raising the initial steam ; thereafter the dried garbage 
continues the operation. The front chamber below the boiler is 
a smoke box, in which all gaseous products are consumed or 
deodorized before passing to the stack. 

This incinerator is a remarkably ingenious theoretical attempt 
to combine in a small compass all the various machinery and 
methods for chopping, drying and burning the garbage, for pro- 
ducing steam power for its own uses, and for destroying the 
products of combustion in such a way as not to produce nuisance. 
In practical use there are still some points to be dealt with, and 
it is possible that the claims for its continuous successful oper- 
ation might not be realized. There is no record of trials or actual 
work performed. 

The Apparatus for Treating and Cremating Garbage of Mr. 
Oscar D. McClellan, Philadelphia, patents Nos. 558,974-5-6-7, 
April, 1896, include several novel and ingenious arrangements for 
the treatment of garbage by a tapering screw to press out the 
moisture, its drying for fuel, and the operation of a powerful 
vertical tubular boiler. The later patents describe another method 
of drying the garbage, the vaporizing of the moisture and the 
development of steam power for the work. These methods are 
described at great length, and seem to cover several theoretically 
successful ways of dealing with the waste, but there is, so far as 
known, no reports or records of the apparatus being in experi- 
mental or actual service. 

The Traveling Garbage Crematory of Mr. Chas. J . de Berard, 
of Chicago, patent 581,686, May, 1897, was brought into actual 
use in Chicago in 1897-8. The purpose of the inventor was to 
provide means for the disposal of garbage, both dry and wet, of 
suitable construction and size, to be mounted upon wheels, and 



196 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

to be drawn through streets and alleys. The crematory, Fig. 
51, is a circular iron shell, 8 ft. long, 5 ft. in diameter. The lower 
part of this shell is divided transversely by the bridge wall (7) 
into two compartments (8-9), and above the first compartment 
(8) are placed grate bars (10) forming the primary fire box 
( 1 1 ) . Above this primary fire box is a horizontal diaphragm 
(12), strengthened by bars and flanges (13) to prevent warping. 
Below the primary fire box is an ash pit with door (15). Above 
the second compartment (9) is a second set of grate bars (17), 
inclined from front to rear, with a door (18) for moving the 
dried material from the floor (12). There is an ash pit below 
these grates with a door (19) for removal of ashes. The smoke 




FIG. 51. THE DE BERARD PORTABLE CREMATORY. 

pipe is directly above the last burning chamber of the bars (17). 
There are oil tanks (23-24) with openings into the spaces above 
the fire bars for assisting combustion. The garbage is charged 
through the hopper (21), which is controlled by a slide valve 
(22). 

In operating this crematory the refuse and combustible matter 
is charged into the primary fire box, and furnishes fuel for dry- 
ing the charge of wet garbage placed upon the drying hearth (12) 
above. When this charge is sufficiently dry to ignite it is pushed 
or pulled forward to the secondary chamber (17), and the com- 
bustion assisted by oil until it is reduced to ashes. All offensive 



DISPOSAL BY CREMATORIES AND INCINERATORS. 197 

odors are driven off while the garbage remains on the floor (12), 
and these mingle with the flames from the burning material on the 
bars (17) and are intercepted and consumed on their passage 
to the stack. This Berard crematory was used in Chicago for 
several months, and from the reports and criticisms of the daily 
press was successful in its work. It was discontinued early in 
1898 and has not been employed since. Since there was no 
lining of fire brick the iron shell must have been injured or de- 
stroyed after a short time. It is also doubtful if the methods for 
destroying the gases were altogether successful in this most im- 
portant point of a portable furnace. 

The Inventions of Mr. Isaac D. Smead and Smead's Traveling 
Crematory. The inventions of Mr. Isaac D. Smead, of Toledo, 
now of Cincinnati, are among the most numerous in the line of 
sanitary appliances which deal with excrement and similar wastes. 
The Smead Dry Closet (patented 1891-2) was formerly in use 
at a great number of isolated buildings mostly school houses 
and is still employed in places where no sewerage facilities are 
accessible. The Smead Combined Crematory and Heating Sys- 
tem (patent 691,328, May, 1902), is an apparatus for consuming 
garbage and refuse matter and applying the heat for the circula- 
tion of water for heating buildings. It is intended for uses of 
large buildings, is operated by using coal, and is ingenious and 
elaborately complicated in the arrangement of the working parts. 

The Smead Garbage Crematory (1902) was an amplification 
and extension of the ideas contained in the heater, and was ex- 
perimentally tried on a large scale at Toledo. There is no record 
of the continuance of this crematory. 

The Smead Traveling Crematory, Fig. 52, is Mr. Smead's latest 
contribution to the long list of patents standing in his name. 
This first portable crematory was built for experimental purposes 
at Springfield, Ohio, in September, 1905, where several trials 
were made dealing with the usual garbage and refuse collection. 
At a public exhibition, at which the city officials were present, a 
severe test was made with very wet garbage, which, according to 
the published reports, was quite successful. Subsequently the 
machine was brought back to the makers to be "tractionized" or 
made self-propelling. A second trial was made in February, 



198 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

1906, but the city did not then purchase the crematory. Since 
then this crematory has been improved in several ways, and is 




FIG. 52. THE SMEAD TRAVELING CREMATORY. 

now offered for the disposal of all classes of garbage, refuse and 
rubbish in competition with the other forms of stationary furnaces. 

PORTABLE RUBBISH INCINERATOR OF THE STREET CLEANING 
DEPARTMENT OF NEW YORK CITY. 

The people of New York City pay but little attention to the 
ordinances forbidding the throwing of litter and refuse into the 
streets. What becomes of the newspaper, the parcel wrapper, 
the paper fruit bag, and the banana, orange and fruit rinds, no- 
body knows or cares, once they are thrown aside into the gutter. 
The cans for deposit of refuse are infrequent, being mostly placed 
at the park entrances and walks, and at the wider street inter- 
sections are not always available. The quantity of this refuse 
scattered about the streets is enormous in bulk and is one of the 
chief sources of trouble to the Department, as it must be swept 
up and held until the daily collection of the street cart. 

The idea of burning this on the spot has long been entertained, 
but no serious attempt was made until February of last year, when 
there was brought into service a small portable furnace, described 
as follows by the. inventor : 

The portable refuse destructors are formed from two wornout street 
cans, making a furnace by superimposing one on another. The lower one 
has a grate introduced above the bottom just far enough to leave a space 
for an ash-pit. The sides of the can are perforated to allow of the 
admission of air necessary for the combustion. The upper can is inverted 



DISPOSAL BY CREMATORIES AND INCINERATORS. 199 

and fits to the lower, forming a dome, which prevents the escape of the 
fire in the lower one. This furnace is placed on the ordinary can carrier 
now in use by the street cleaners and is fed by them as they patrol their 
beat, and the operation of disposal is continuous and effective. The re- 
sultant ash is placed in the ordinary street cans. When not in use these 
furnaces are stored at the sections, and the carrier is used for its original 
function. The cans used measure 18 inches across the top and are from 
16 to 21 inches high. The grate is placed 10 inches above the bottom. 
The perforations are in three rows around the can and alcove the grate, 
the top hole being 10 inches above the grate. The feed door is 8 x 10 
inches. The capacity of the furnace is about two cartloads of rubbish per 
day, and the resultant ash about one pailful. As the material is on hand, 
the cost is only for labor, being the wages of two men at $4.00 per day, or 
$8.00 that is, $1.00 per furnace. The advantages of these portable de- 
structors are obvious, as they clean up the rubbish that would otherwise 
be mixed in with the street sweepings and ashes. They also handle the 
litter on the street surface, and when the man has reached the end of his 
route there remains to be handled but a small quantity of ash. The first 
one of these furnaces was put in operation on Saturday, February 16. At 
this writing there are about twenty-five at work. The reports from the 
district superintendents, the section foremen and also from the men who 
handle them are favorable, and it appears that this is a reasonable proposi- 
tion and one that will save considerable trouble and add very largely to 
the sanitary state of the work of this Department. 

In the practical use of this portable incinerator some points of 
difficulty developed, which will probably cause its discontinuance 
in the present form. The furnace will keep up combustion with- 
out serious emission of smoke if it be fed continuously with small 
pieces of light paper, but will not burn fruit rinds or wood. When 
there is a large quantity of paper charged at once then there is 
smoke followed by flames and sparks from the top of the upper 
can. The expense of collection and slow feeding is greater than 
that of the old method of sweeping and removal by carts. The 
slight thickness of iron soon warps and gives way under the heat 
and is not worth the trouble and cost of repairs. Since nothing 
but light paper and cardboard can be burned there is left a large 
amount of other refuse, which must be swept up and cared for 
in the usual way, making double work for the sweepers. During 
the strike of the cart drivers of the Department in 1907 these 
incinerators were of very considerable service, but could deal 
with only a small fraction of the total street refuse. Of the 
twenty-five built there are but few left at work, the number is not 
increased, and at this writing the Department had decided not to 
continue their manufacture or use in this form. 



2OO THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

THE PORTABLE FURNACES OF THE ENGLISH DESTRUCTOR 
BUILDERS. 

The construction of portable furnaces has been carried on by 
the English builders, following in their main details one general 
form, but each builder adding such special features as are com- 
mon to their own standard destructors. 

The Meldrum Simplex Portable Destructor (Fig. 53) is per- 
haps one of the best examples, being specially designed for mili- 
tary camps and for sparsely settled communities, where the cost 
of refuse collection and .haulage to a central station would be 
excessive. 

The destructor is a steel cylinder mounted on wheels and pro- 
vided with large doors at the rear end for light refuse with a 




tj- 



FIG. 53. THE MELDRUM PORTABLE DESTRUCTOR. 

smaller door on the side for wet offal. The grate surface of the 
fire box is as large as possible and there is provision for obtaining 
forced draft from the steam boiler. High temperatures are 
maintained, and there is a special apparatus for destroying the 
fumes of all combustion, as in the standard Meldrum furnaces. 
The Horsfall Destructor Company also manufactures a portable 
destructor for use in districts too thinly populated to justify the 
use of a destructor of the usual type, also for military camps and 
similar purposes. This portable destructor consists of three 
pieces, destructor proper, the boiler and the smoke box containing 
a dust-catching arrangement. It is built on the well-known prin- 
ciple of the Horsfall Destructor, and may be relied upon to con- 
sume miscellaneous rubbish economically and without nuisance. 
The boiler is of the locomotive type, and supplies steam for the 



DISPOSAL BY CREMATORIES AND INCINERATORS. 



201 



blowers, and is provided with a junction to which can be coupled 
the steam pipe of an engine for doing any useful work, such as 




FIG. 54. THE HORSFALL PORTABLE DESTRUCTOR. 

driving a mortar mill or a small lighting plant, or a steam dis- 
infector may be connected. This destructor may be easily re- 
moved from place to place by horses or by traction engine, and 
will readily burn six tons or more of refuse every 24 hours. 

There are two sizes manufactured, with capacity of 500 and 
1000 Ib. per hour, respectively, being the usual mixed, unsorted 
waste collections. 

There is no record of the use of these portable furnaces con- 
tinuously in municipal disposal work. Their chief purpose is the 
destruction of large amounts of light refuse produced by the 
temporary presence of a considerable number of persons, where 
the cost of the regular service would be too great. In times of 
epidemic, when the occasion might arise for the prompt and ef- 
fectual destruction of dangerous matters, a powerful portable fur- 



202 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

nace would be of great help to the sanitary authorities. Since 
there is a boiler, raised to any desired pressure, there would al- 
ways be a current of steam at high temperature to assist in the 
disinfection work, so necessary in times of emergency. 

PORTABLE FURNACE STILL EXPERIMENTAL. 
There is undoubtedly a place for a portable furnace, and with- 
in its powers it will be a useful adjunct to the other methods of 
municipal waste disposal. But it does not seem to have passed 
the first experimental stages of construction. Those that have 
been tried here have developed inefficiency in some essntial point, 
or prhaps too much has been expected of thm and too great claims 
made for their work. To burn large quantities of wet garbage in 
a traveling furnace with a chimney necessarily low, and to dis- 
charge the smoke and gases incompletely destroyed into the air 
on a crowded street would manifestly be an unwise proceeding. 
Even the best and most powerful forms of furnaces are not 
always at their highest efficiency, and with the varying, uncertain 
amount and character of usual city waste, the results of portable 
furnace work would be exceedingly doubtful. 

THE CALORIFIC VALUE OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

In determining the most suitable forms of cremating furnaces 
for the disposal of waste by fire it becomes desirable to ascertain 
the calorific value of the waste in mixed and separated collec- 
tions of the usual and average composition in American towns. 

It is only within the past two years that reports upon this 
point have been available, and in only one town have they been 
prepared with the aid of scientific laboratory tests. The theo- 
retical values obtained through the medium of a calorimeter have 
been checked by practical trials made with various classes of 
municipal waste, extended over the period of a year. The 
average of each experiment may be accepted as representing 
approximately the calorific value of waste in American towns 
where conditions are similar, making, of course, whatever allow- 
ance is necessary for exceptional proportions of any waste 
constituent. 

The following table has been made by the author from the 
reports of Mr. J. T. Fetherston upon the municipal wastes of 
West New Brighton, Staten Island, N. Y. : 



DISPOSAL BY CREMATORIES AND INCINERATORS. 



203 



sqj 'asnpj 'aScqaeS 'saqsc 

1 Jlr- v l>.>>v.mt,>-. 1(369 UO) 
uo ill jnp-A juo.i 4 pjAint'.i 



*S 



0000 
i50 
- M 



8.-^ 2 

IW 8 



M 



< W 



,oS 

H C6 




^ 

^ 

2 



as 

n u 




ii 



2O4 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 



Assuming these figures as correctly representing the accurate 
and theoretical values, in the table following they are extended 
to cover the various collections of mixed waste, and expressed 
in equivalent coal values. 

In all these tables the author has used the word "refuse" to 
mean the dry combustible light waste, and employed the word 
"rubbish" to mean the residuum left of incombustibles, after 
sorting out the marketable and combustible portions. Rubbish 
properly includes the glass, metals, tins, crockery, and generally 
all unburnable matter. 

TABLE XLIV. THEORETICAL CALORIFIC VALUES OF AMERICAN 
CITY WASTE, IN EQUIVALENT COAL. 



Combined waste : -i i 

I i 

i , 

Separated waste: 



f i ton ashes, garbage, refuse and rubbish 480 Ibs. coal 

garbage, refuse and rubbish 502 ' 

ashes, refuse and rubbish 532 ' 

i " ashes 487 ' 

i ' garbage , 363 ' 

i ' refuse 1,298 ' 

i " rubbish. . 



It must be noted that these equivalent coal values are theo- 
retical results only since the determinations are based upon 
laboratory tests, and the ratios calculated from these. 

These theoretical results are to be considered as indicating the 
amount of heat units, but do not show the actual product of 
power developed by the burning waste. 

TABLE XLV. CALORIFIC VALUE PER POUND OF WASTE FOR DIF- 
FERENT PERIODS. 





Calorific 












Power of 


Moisture 


Ash. 


Combus- 




PERIOD 


Combus- 


Per 


Per 


tible 


Remarks 




tible, 


Cent. 


Cent. 


Per Cent. 






B. T. U. 










Spring 


4,747 


14.03 


50.06 


35-9i 




Computed results 














based on average 


Summer. . . 


3,477 


28.86 


39-74 


31 .40 




figures for corre- 














sponding periods, 


Autumn, . . 


3,833 


27 .74 


39-74 


3 2 -5 2 




except that aver- 
^ age calorific values 


Winter. . . 


4.358 


13.11 


52.72 


34-17 




for summer com- 














ponents were used 


Year 


4,274 


19-74 


46.03 


34-23 




in arriving at Sep- 














tember results. 


September 


3,265 


35.83 


33 - 6 9 


30.48 







DISPOSAL BY CREMATORIES AND INCINERATORS. 205 

The actual measurements of heat values of unseparated city 
waste, according to the observations and deductions of several 
experts, are shown in the table XLV : 

Mr. Hering gives the following estimate of calorific values of 
the waste of Milwaukee as collected: 

Garbage (as collected) 1.500 B. T. U. per pound 

Rubbish and ashes mixed S,ooo 

Manure 2 ,000 

These computations vary according to the different constituents 
of waste, and its physical conditions as containing more or less 
water. They agree in one point only, that the actual heat units 
per pound of waste is sufficient to continue combustion, and if 
taken together in mixed collections require no additional fuel for 
combustion. But the conditions of combustion are those of 
forced draft or of a chimney draft of equivalent power. 

THE CALORIFIC VALUE OF ASHES. 

In examining these calculations there are some unexpected 
and surprising results. For instance, the fuel value contained 
in ashes seems to be far greater than has been supposed. House- 
hold ashes are known to have from 25 to 35 per cent, of unburned 
coal mixed with' cinder and slate, and also contains nearly 40 per 
cent, of finely burned ash. This ash has not been held to pos- 
sess any heat value, and under the usual furnace conditions with 
natural draft does not develop power. But when treated by 
itself it contains a considerable proportion of combustibles. This 
is illustrated by laboratory tests made in July last, with samples 
of steam-boiler ashes from the plant of one of the largest manu- 
facturing works in this country, where the daily output of ash is 
from twenty-five to thirty tons. All of the boilers are fired by 
mechanical stokers of various patterns. All use the same semi- 
bituminous coal. 

TABLE XLVI. LABORATORY ANALYSIS OF STEAM ASHES. 

Moisture o. 54 per cent. 

Ash 51.42 " " 

Total combustible 48.04 " " 

Calorific power 7,737 B- T. U. 

Following the same line of calculations as in previous tables, 
it would appear that one ton of these ashes has a theoretical 
equivalent coal value of 1,100 pounds. Assuming the combusti- 



206 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 



O 

DC 
Q. 

Ill 

I 



Z (0 

<g 

CO J 



111 

h til 

^< 

Z Ul 



X Ul 



mo 









|8 


65 65 




E 


< 











||l 


^"^co 


o <o 


1 


I 


1* 


l s lp" 


vO 


w 

w 




W 

H 


9 

2 -o? 


III 


in 




Z 




^, <^ rt 




1 


2 

i 


" ^ C P 


^'o > 


s Z 






J 


s 


Tj Q Q C/2 


* r; rt 


O u*> 


<J 


s 


^ PQ JO ro 


tlO .Sn S "*"* 


w \o 


Bi 


o 


!& " N 


.2 -t* ^ "H 


^1 





o 


J 


c2 w^^ 




s 


g 
o 
H 


2 J* 


fS 


65 65 




S 



3 


|?-o? 

wi 


III 


i> 

J? >0 


Zj 








M ^ O ^ 


aT ^ 5 tn 


5 % 






Ofe 


I' S II^ 


i-T o 






iai? 


|v| 


65 65 

00 




tw 

H 


ifJil 


i^ 


J? i 


tl 


M 


^^ w rt co 


- -clS 


00 N 


< 


*2 








o 




t/3 fH *Q (V) 


W) 5-2 ^ 


^ JL 


O 


j 


^;i^ 


rt- S 'C ^ 


to >n 


p 


u 


S 


rt w^_ 




o 


o 








a 
a 

H 



3 


o 


sl 

i|S 


'g 60 4) 

jil 


65 65 

r^ O 
>o O 




* 


fe^ H 


Hji 


00 * 


ANTHRACITE COAL 


DEPARTMENT OF 
WATER SUPPLY, 
GAS AND 
ELECTRICITY 
NEW YORK CITY 


From 
Pennsylvania 
(56 Samples) 


|!| 


65 65 

^ 


|4|| 


o o^ 




'Co' 'C* 




^ ^ 




o"o 3 




o ! u*d 


w 


5| : ^ : 


1 


"o S. : "S 8, j 




i|| i|] 




o o 



DISPOSAL BY CREMATORIES AND INCINERATORS. 207 

bles according to another determination at 5,000 B. T. U., the 
coal equivalent would be 768 pounds. These results seem to be 
unexplainable except upon the supposition that a large propor- 
tion of the fine coaldust falls through the grates and is removed 
with the ash, clinker, and cinders. 

The table (XLVII) by Mr. Welton gives the range of the theo- 
retical values of the three classes of waste; at New Brighton, as 
actually collected, and on the basis of a dry sample. The cam- 
parison made with the kinds of coal shows the approximate 
calorific value of the waste. 

With respect to the foregoing table Mr. Welton says : 

To those who are not familiar with the calorific values of the staple 
fuels, such as anthracite and bituminous coals, it may appear that no great 
confidence should be placed in the results of these tests on material which 
would naturally be expected to vary widely in character. As a matter of 
fact, the experiments have shown a uniformity of character in the material 
which is all the more remarkable in that it was not anticipated. Indeed, 
now, when all the data are at hand, the conclusion might easily be drawn 
that in the instances where the largest variations in calorific values per 
pound of combustible occur, this variation is more likely to be due to the 
difficulty of obtaining representative samples from the collections than 
from actual differences in character. 

Moreover, few who have had no occasion to study the mater of analyses 
and calorific tests of coal are aware of the variation in fuel value of its 
combustible portion or what is known as "pure coal." 

THE CALORIFIC VALUES OF OTHER WASTE. 

The subject of the disposal of many forms of waste matter 
other than municipal refuse is attracting attention all over the 
world. Abroad, the large industrial corporations which have 
trade waste or a large output of steam-boiler ashes are taking up 
the question of their economical disposal. At several places in 
England, where the colliery waste will frequently spontaneously 
ignite, causing much trouble, it has been demonstrated that these 
fuels of low calorific value and a high percentage of incom- 
bustibles can be profitably consumed. Similarly in shipyards, 
railway shops, and large manufacturing concerns where there are 
large quantities of wood chips, shavings, sawdust, paper, cinders, 
and ordinary works refuse, the saving in fuel when burned in a 
specially designed plant has warranted the outlay for equipment 



208 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 



and overcome the difficulty of disposing of these waste materials. 
The following table gives the approximate calometric values of 
some waste matters that can be advantageously consumed : 

TABLE XLVIII. CALORIFIC VALUES OF WASTE MATERIALS. 



CLASS OF MATERIAL 


Lbs. Water per 
Lb. Fuel From 
and at 212 Fah. 


COLLIERY REFUSE 


Lbs. Water per 
Lb. Fuel From 
and at 2 12 Fah. 


Cotton waste 
Sugar refuse 
Newspaper 


4-i 
2-35 
6.85 


Fine washings . . . . 
Pond settlings .... 
Shale pickings .... 


10.20 tO 5-01 

10.3 to 12.04 
4.45; to 9.62 


Tissue paper 


6 2 


Fine coke dust. . . 


0.4 


Brown paper 
Wood chips, wet 
dry 


5-6 . 

3-5 

8.2 

A 8 


Screen pickings. . . 
Tank settlings .... 
Coke and coal dust 


8.05 to 13. 
5-75 

10.2 


Shoddy refuse 


4 . o 

r 2 


Peat dry 


10 62 


Cider refuse, wet .... 
dry. . . . 
Spent tan bark, dry . . 
wet . 


I .9 

8-4 
5-46 

T> -84 


wet 
Straw, dry 
wet 
Sawdust 


7-65 
6-5 

5-6 

C. I 











The value of some forms of industrial waste is shown in the 
following report of a test made in January, 1908 : 

XLIX. RESULTS OF TESTS CARRIED OUT BY MESSRS. HARLAND & 
WOLFF, BELFAST, IRELAND, ON A 3-GRATE (75 SQ. FT.) MEL- 
DRUM SIMPLEX DESTRUCTOR INSTALLED FOR BURNING 
THE REFUSE COLLECTED IN THEIR SHIPBUILDING 
YARDS AND SHOPS, JANUARY 21, 1908. 

Hrs. Mins. 

(1) TOTAL DURATION OF TEST 10 20 

Less for meals i 40 Hrs. Mins. 

Net duration of test - 8 40 

(2) FUEL CONSUMED: Tons Cwt. Qrs. 

General rubbish 14 18 o 

Sawdust, shavings and lighter 

stuff. . 9 I2 



Gross 




24 i 


[O O 








Less iron, wood 


, etc., sorted out 


i 





Tons 


Cwt. 


Qrs. 


FUEL BURNT PER 


HOUR. . 


Tons 

2T, 


Cwt. 

IO 


Tons 

=2 .71 







(3) 

Hrs. Mins. 
8 40 

(4) TOTAL WATER EVAPORATED DURING TEST (weighed) 102,933 Ibs. 

(5) WATER EVAPORATED PER HOUR. . 102,933 Ibs. =11,890 Ibs. 



Hrs. 
8 



Mins. 
40 



DISPOSAL BY CREMATORIES AND INCINERATORS. 



209 



(6) WATER EVAPORATED PER LB. OF FUEL (actual) r -955 Ibs. 

(7) TEMPERATURES: 

Gases leaving boiler 540 F. 

Temperature of steam leaving superheater 650 F 

Temperatuie of steam at laige separator 410 F. 

Temperature of steam at No. 2 Engine 400 F. 

NOTE. Temperature of saturated steam at our working boiler pressure 
of 200 Ibs. per square inch=388 F. 

(i) The normal evaporation of the Scotch Marine boilers in our Generat- 
ing Station is 10,300 Ibs. of saturated steam per hour. 

(Signed) HARLAND & WOLFF, Limited. 

E. W. 

As illustrating the power to be had from refuse coal waste, 
there is appended the details of a trial made at the North Naviga- 
tion Collieries, South Wales, on two Meldrum Simplex Colliery 
Destructor Furnaces, coupled to two Lancashire boilers, 30 feet 
long by 8 feet 6 inches diameter, consuming coke oven breeze 
and pond settlings, with evaporation from cold feed water. 





DURATION OF TEST 


8 a.m. to 9 a.m. 


12 noon to 4:30 p.m. 


Fuel used 

Water evaporated per hour 
Total water evaporated 
Temperature feed water . . . 
atmosphere. . 
Steam pressure 


C. breeze and P. settlings. 
1,872 gals 


C. breeze and P. 
settlings. 
1,620 gals. 
7,400 gals. 
40 Fahr. 
45 Fahr. 
125 Ibs. 
Two furnaces cleaned 
during test. 


1,872 gals 


40 Fahr 


4S Fahr 


125 Ibs 


Fire 


Clean at start 





The utilization of trade waste in developing steam power in 
private business establishments is rapidly coming to the front in 
this country. Not only does the incineration produce power, but 
it also provides a practical way of getting rid of forms of worth- 
less matter which are frequently troublesome to deal with and 
costly to convey away from the works. Every manufacturing 
company has to deal with this problem in a greater or lesser 
degree, and the examples of this method of disposal reported 
from foreign factories are being followed by American manu- 



cio THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

facturers. The installation of a Meldrum destructor at the great 
works of the General Electric Company, at Schenectady, N. Y., 
will turn all the waste matter of the plant into steam to be utilized 
in the premises. The same means is to be employed in a large 
department store in New York City, and a hotel in New York is 
about to install two separate destructors, each with steam boilers 
for obtaining power from the combustion of the refuse of the 
building. 

In each one of these instances a special form of powerful 
destructor furnace, with forced draft and air regenerating ap- 
paratus, is employed. The usual form of American crematory 
cannot deal with such problems, since up to the present time only 
one or two constructions have been able to produce boiler power 
more than barely sufficient for the needs of the furnace itself. 

SURVEY OF AMERICAN CREMATING METHODS. 

With this chapter the history of American crematory furnaces 
down to October, 1908, is brought to a conclusion. Those that 
have been built in the United States and Canada in 1907-8, 
with few exceptions, are either of an improved American type 
under American patents, or of the British type, which has now 
acquired a foothold in this country in four or five installations. 
These are separated and taken up later as a distinct advance from 
the cremators and incinerators of the preceding descriptions. 

Did space permit, there might be added an account of many 
attempts made in the past to construct and operate garbage 
cremating disposal works, some of which were costly and in- 
genious experiments that barely failed of success. Others that 
simply implied stupidity and ignorance in the fundamental prin- 
ciples of the art, and. still others that were built for the sole pur- 
pose of making a show to secure a contract. 

Undoubtedly there will be still brought forward many forms 
of furnaces for this work that are destined to fail, and some that 
may achieve a success that will be permanent. The field is a 
wide one, the opportunities many, the necessity undeniable and 
the rewards great in promise. 

But it must be remembered that with the experience of past 
years behind them, with the assistance of expert engineers who 
are now turning attention to this neglected branch of municipal 



DISPOSAL BY CREMATORIES AND INCINERATORS. 211 

service, and with a better knowledge of what the several com- 
munities really need, the municipalities are not disposed to 
accept offers of furnace builders unless there be positive and 
reliable evidence of the capacity, durability, efficiency and sanitary 
operation of the forms of furnaces offered. 

This evidence should not consist of the profuse and glittering 
statements of prospective builders, even though they be sup- 
ported by flowery newspaper accounts of a trial made at the 
instance of and in the interests of the builder, nor the telegrams 
of a far distant city official whose knowledge comes solely from 
an employee whose place depends upon putting the most favorable 
aspect upon what is really a lamentable failure, or at best only a 
partial success. 

Nothing but an official record of costs and results over a period 
of at least one year should be accepted, and this should be verified 
by the personal inspection and unbiased report of a competent 
engineer of their own city, or from one whose knowledge of this 
branch of work includes experience and study of all the various 
forms universally used. 

Only by a thorough, exhaustive examination of all the points 
involved can the town authorities be certain that they are securing 
the best and the most suitable apparatus for the particular work 
they want done. 

DIFFERENCES IN FORMS OF FURNACE CONSTRUCTION. 

When considering and comparing the various forms of Ameri- 
can garbage cremating furnaces, it will be seen that they may be 
divided broadly into two general classes or groups, the members 
of each group having many points in common, similar methods 
in operation, and all arrive at practically the same results in their 
general work. In each class there are some minor subdivisions, 
but none that depart widely from the distinguishing type. 

The first class or group have the following distinctive points: 

1. They are the crematories and incinerators that burn only garbage 
and refuse upon long horizontal garbage grate bars, either in single or 
double arrangement, and charge the waste through circular or rectangular 
openings in the roof. 

2. They deposit the garbage upon the largest area of surface that the 
plan of the furnace will permit, piling up the largest quantity possible to 
charge without stopping the passage of the flames. In one form of fur- 



212 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

nace these bars are of hollow iron inclined from the middle line to the 
sides instead of being horizontal. 

3. The heat is not utilized for operating a steam boiler, nor does the 
construction permit the use of a boiler with any certainty of obtaining 
power. 

4. They consume the waste by heat applied from fuel boxes at one end, 
one side, or below the grates, and pass. the heat over and under the masses 
of garbage, since it is practically impossible to force the passage of flame 
or heat through thick masses of wet household garbage by chimney draft. 

5. For the purpose of stoking or stirring the garbage there must be a 
series of doors on the line of the grates, and below a second series for 
removing ashes. These doors admit large volumes of cold air, which must 
be heated to the temperature of the furnace interior before combustion can 
continue. 

6. This operation of stoking causes moisture and unburned garbage to 
pass through the grates into the lower compartment, where it is slowly 
dried out until in a condition to burn. The evaporation from this moisture 
is not completed or destroyed until the secondary fire is brought to bear, 
and then only when this fire is at a temperature of 1,500 or above. 

7. There is an average low temperature in all parts of the furnace 
except immediately adjoining or above the fuel box. The presence of 
moisture in masses of household waste over which the flames and heat 
pass to the chimney, the continual admission of volumes of cold air reduce 
the temperatures until the smoke and gases are not destroyed. In one 
experiment where an electrical pyrometer recorded the temperature the 
heat immediately behind the fuel box was 1,500 degrees, but decreased for 
each four feet of the garbage grate 300 degrees, finally leaving the burning 
chamber at 600 degrees in the shape of smoke and watery vapors taken up 
but not consumed. In one instance the sides and top of the furnace are 
double jacketed steel plates, with which are connected all the water grate 
bars for sustaining the garbage. This to some extent maintains the con- 
struction, but lowers the temperature, as the heat is absorbed by the sur- 
rounding water surfaces. 

8. There is always an imperative need for a secondary or smoke- 
consuming fire in the furnace itself or in immediate conjunction to reheat 
and reburn the incomplete combustion. 

9. And it follows that fuel must be used in greater or lesser amounts to 
keep up the initial heat of the furnace fire and maintain the smoke and 
gas-consuming temperatures of the secondary fire. 

Conditions Necessary to Success. When crematories are re- 
quired to burn garbage and refuse (excluding ashes) in the usual 
proportions as collected in American towns, and when these 
wastes are separately collected and brought to the crematory to 
be destroyed by natural draft, the work of combustion is not 
performed in the most efficient way. 



DISPOSAL BY CREMATORIES AND INCINERATORS. 213 

The conditions of success of burning wet fuels, as stated by 
Prof. R. H. Thurston, are "the surrounding of the mass so com- 
pletely with heated surfaces and with burning fuel that it may be 
rapidly dried, and then so arranging the apparatus that the rapid- 
ity of combustion be precisely equal to and never exceed the 
rapidity of desiccation." How far these conditions are met in 
the construction and arrangement of cremators and incinerators 
can be easily seen by inspection of the previous plans and 
descriptions. 

When garbage and refuse, separately collected, are brought to 
an incinerator, or crematory, and charged separately into the 
furnace, what then takes place is further described by Prof. 
Thurston: "When this rapidity of combustion is exceeded the 
dry portion is consumed completely, leaving the uncovered mass 
of wet fuel, which refuses to burn." This is precisely what 
happens when large volumes of dry rubbish are burned with an 
excessive amount of cold air, and the heat is rapidly carried to 
the chimney, leaving the wet mass of garbage on the grates. Coal 
or other fuel must then be added to continue the combustion. 

These imperfect conditions in crematories are inseparable from 
the very nature of the construction. Natural chimney draft, 
operating with equal force in all parts of the interior and drawing 
cold air in through the many doors and other openings, does 
not exert the same power for combustion of material upon a grate 
as does a forced draft powerfully applied under the limited area 
of the burning fire surface. In the one case the fire is at one end 
of a long series of grates piled with wet material, over which the 
heat is drawn by chimney draft. In the other case the heat is 
increased by forced draft below each grate to such an extent that 
the waste is consumed without other fuel. The calorific elements 
of the waste are utilized, combustion is accomplished in shorter 
time and at far higher temperature than in the first example. 

The second group of crematories used in American disposal 
work is composed of those whose construction follows the cell 
type and are largely imitations of the British cell destructors of 
an early date. 

They are built with partitions or divisions between the fuel 
grates, and with sloping drying hearths to receive the initial 



214 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

charges of waste. They proceed by stoking down the waste when 
partially dried to the first division of the fire bars, and complete 
the combustion on the second or lower set of bars, withdrawing 
the ashes through the front clinkering doors. Additional fuel 
is supplied to the second set of fire bars when needed. The 
smoke and gases from the furnace pass through side flues to one 
main flue and thence to the chimney. No fume cremator or 
secondary fire-box is employed. 

The heat in this large main flue is not sufficient to raise steam 
in a boiler, and no forced draft can be obtained from the com- 
bustion of the waste. The chimneys are necessarily of extreme 
height, since the unconsumed smoke and gases must be dis- 
charged at a high altitude to avoid cause for complaints of 
nuisance. 

The rate of combustion per square foot of grate surface is low, 
and a long time is required to consume a charge by natural draft. 
This compels a greater number of cells, with a corresponding 
increase in the cost of the plant in order to destroy a given 
quantity per day. 

CREMATORS AND DESTRUCTORS COMPARED. 

The differences pointed out between the cremators and de- 
structors, and the comparison of the results of the work of each, 
are obviously in favor of the destructor system of disposal. 

This statement is made, not with the purpose of unfair 
criticism or harshly condemning the work of the past years of 
American furnace builders. The author has been identified with 
a large number of these crematory installations in many varied 
forms, and knows at what cost of money, time and earnest effort 
they have been built and operated. But taking the record of the 
years past and comparing the results accomplished with the ex- 
pected and promised returns, it must be admitted that there is a 
failure to achieve anything more than a partial success. The 
future of this work as at present carried on does not offer an 
encouraging outlook, and it seems absolutely necessary that a 
change be made, and some better form of apparatus be brought 
into service. The experience of other countries should be brought 
to our aid, now that we know the conditions of the American 
communities are almost identical with those existing abroad, 



DISPOSAL BY CREMATORIES AND INCINERATORS. 215 

where successful methods of destroyal of municipal refuse by 
fire are in use. 

In the past two years there have been four destructors installed 
that have met the guarantees made for their performance, and 
proved their ability to deal with the municipal waste of the 
country precisely as is done by other destructors in more than 
three hundred installations in other parts of the world. 

This has led to the thorough examination of the subject by 
engineers sent from this side, and in four cases these destructor 
methods have been adopted by American and Canadian cities. 
Other citfes are engaging competent engineers to examine and 
report upon their own requirements with the intention of adopt- 
ing that method which may be most suitable for them. 

All this means progress; it means the application of the best 
engineering talent obtainable and the permanent establishment 
of durable and successful methods ; and let us hope, it also means 
the end of the crooked and doubtful ways of obtaining conces- 
sions and contracts that react alike upon the builders and the 
towns and are a reproach and a menace to all who are connected 
with this work. 



PART III. 

THE DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY BRITISH DESTRUCTOR 

SYSTEMS. 

CHAPTER X. 

HIGH TEMPERATURE REFUSE DESTRUCTORS. 

Mr. W. Francis Goodrich, the well-known English writer on 
destructors and their work, gives the following three classes into 
which refuse destructors may be divided : 

First, the original type of low temperature and slow combustion cells, 
with which little, if any, use was made of the escaping gases for power 
production. 

Second, destructors provided with artificial draft, and, therefore, more 
efficient as destructors, by reason of the higher temperature obtained, and 
greater destroying capacity, but which only provide power for work pur- 
poses or clinker utilization, and 

Third, destructors of modern types providing the maximum amount of 
power available from the refuse, and available for the generation of 
electricity, for pumping sewage, for gas works or other municipal purposes 
for which power is required. 

Mr. Goodrich further says : 

With the early type of destructor of the low temperature, slow com- 
bustion type, boilers were but rarely installed, and no attempt whatever 
was made to develop power. The low temperature gases were useless for 
steam raising purposes, very frequently not being sufficiently high in tem- 
perature to avoid nuisance. 

The residuum or clinker was soft and objectionable, having no com- 
mercial value, it being impossible to produce a good, serviceable vitreous 
clinker unless a high temperature be reached and maintained in the cell. 

The above description of results obtained by the early forms 
cf the British destructor may be applied to the present forms of 
crematories and incinerators used in this country, without the 
change of a single word. That this description was true of the 
first installations in England is agreed to by all writers who have 
published accounts of the work of destructors abroad. That it 
is true of the results obtained by prevailing methods and apparatus 
in this country will be equally obvious to anyone who will note 
the beginning, progress and present state of disposal of municipal 
waste by fire. 

216 



DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY BRITISH DESTRUCTOR SYSTEMS. 217 

We are practically at the point in this country that they were 
in England when the u fume cremator," or secondary fire, was 
established as a necessary accessory to the furnace. 

If, after experience of more than twenty years and the con- 
struction of nearly two hundred different furnaces by more than 
fifty different builders, we have not succeeded in evolving a 
satisfactory and efficient means of consuming wet fuels, despite 
the repeated attemps made to do so by means of inadequate 
apparatus, it would ssem that it is high time for a change in 
methods in one direction or another. Either let us give up the 
question as one impossible to deal with, bring forward some new 
furnace of more powerful design than its predecessors, or adopt 
the methods and apparatus which have been proved to be satis- 
factory in nearly parallel conditions. 

The foregoing characterizes our present position in waste dis- 
posal work. A point has been reached where to go back means 
defeat, and to go on with the appliances of to-day means simply 
a continuation of past results. The alternative is to bring the ex- 
periences of other nations to the aid of American communities 
and achieve an advance that will be radical and permanent. 

American Conditions. When considering the situation here as 
compared with that of English towns we must take into account 
the varying nature and proportions of the waste with which we 
have to deal, and we must also accept the conditions imposed by 
the communities which ask help in the matter. 

The English method of procedure is to collect all kinds of mu- 
nicipal waste (except night-soil) in one receptacle with no separa- 
tion, and to burn this mixed mass at one operation, utilizing the 
power when practicable, or allowing it to go to waste, when 
necessary. There is no attempt to separate the wastes, nor in any 
place, except in a limited way in some of the largest cities is any 
effort made to recover anything for market. Probably this is 
because the population is more economical in habit and less waste- 
ful than that of the American communities. 

But here the conditions are somewhat different. Unless there 
is a practical and unmistakably evident way in which power 
derived from the combustion of its waste can be employed a town 
does not usually elect to dispose of its waste by the use of a 
destructor. Garbage is burned, refuse or rubbish is now also 



218 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

being burned, but ashes are conveyed to dumps or used for mak- 
ing land and roads. 

The separation of garbage from other forms of waste is rightly 
considered a necessary step to secure sanitation in the household ; 
it is also a convenience to the towns, because where this system 
obtains, garbage can be handled by itself, apart from the volume 
of ashes which forms the largest portion of town waste. Hence 
the need of furnaces that deal with garbage alone, or garbage in 
conjunction with rubbish, ashes being entirely eliminated. The 
crematories do this by using coal to burn wet masses of garbage 
by itself; also by the building of larger furnaces to receive the 
rubbish, employing it as fuel as far as possible. Because of the 
limited draft obtained through the chimney there is slow com- 
bustion and low temperature, causing frequent objection on the 
score of nuisance. 

Manifestly, an improved means of disposal by fire must deal 
with conditions as they are, and must be prepared to destroy the 
separated waste when it is not mixed with large amounts of ash. 

These are the conditions confronting the engineers that have 
the special cases of various cities in hand, whose specifications for 
the construction of disposal plants contain precisely this feature, 
the cremation of garbage and rubbish that is practically without 
the admixture of ashes. 

The preceding tables of calorific values of American wastes 
prove that waste is auto-combustible when fired under favorable 
conditions. The reports of operating destructors in this country 
show that waste containing the largest proportions of wet garbage 
mixed with rubbish is destroyed without fuel, with steam develop- 
men of reasonable power. 

As far as we have gone the results have been satisfactory, not 
perhaps equal to all that was expected, but still up to the standard 
set by the makers of the destructors, and in every case, so far, 
exceeding the guaranteed capacity and power development. 

This practically fills the description by Mr. Goodrich of the 
destructor operating as a destructor, and destroying a greater 
quantity at a higher temperature than can be done by furnaces 
without the special features of a destructor. This authority says : 

No real progress was made until it was clearly recognized that the old 
system of low temperature working was wrong, and that it must be super- 



DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY BRITISH DESTRUCTOR SYSTEMS. 219 

seded by artificial draft. With the introduction of forced combustion and 
high temperature working, complaints concerning nuisance ceased. The 
cremator having fulfilled its purpose, was but rarely heard of and was no 
longer adopted. . . . Instead of the slow, low temperature distillation 
of the gases, or cooking of the material, the fires were new made vigorous 
and the temperature high; the clinker, previously soft, offensive and 
worthless, was now vitreous and serviceable, and not only was nuisance 
prevented, but the destroying capacity of a plant of given size was 
doubled, a large and constant volume of hot gases passing through the 
boiler to the chimney. 

Destructors in American Practice. When the destructors are 
required to furnish power for works purpose only, that is, for 
forced draft for the furnace, and for driving mortar mills and 
crushing machines for preparing the clinker for tile or bricks, the 
boilers are smaller than when power is to be developed for electric 
lighting. An example of this is at Vancouver, B. C, where the 
destructor deals with the garbage, refuse and a limited quantity of 
ashes having a low calorific value. Here the boiler is 65 horse- 
power instead of the usual 200 horsepower commonly installed 
with a 5o-ton destructor. 

At Seattle, Wash., and at New Brighton, N. Y., the destructors 
are at present operated for disposal only, no use being made of 
the power, although each of these installations has a 200 horse- 
power B. & W. boiler, with all accessories. The purpose is to 
employ power at these plants later on. 

A good example of the advantages of an installation for dis- 
posal only, and the subsequent utilization of the power for the 
production of revenue, is at Prahran, Australia, where at first the 
power was not employed, but was subsequently found to be of 
sufficient value to nearly defray the operating expenses of the 
plant. (See Chapter XI, Prahran Destructor.) 

DESTRUCTORS OF MAXIMUM POWER. 

The third classification made by Mr. Goodrich, of destructors of 
the modern type providing the maximum amount of power, 
available for many municipal purposes, is well illustrated in 
American practice by the work of the Meldrum Simplex Destruc- 
tor at Westmount, Canada. 

This combined electrical and refuse disposal station was de- 
signed for the utilization of the steam power to be had from the 



22o THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTF 

waste as auxiliary to the regular boiler equipment of the station. 
The reports for two years show that the disposal of the town's 
refuse in an unseparated condition is perfectly done ; that the 
steam power has an annual value of $5,000, and that the operat- 
ing expenses are brought down to a figure lower than the average 
cost of disposal at any other place of corresponding size. There 
is besides an annual decrease of the previous cost of collection 
and transportation expenses, due to the central location of the 
plant. 

These successful examples of disposal by the destructor system 
have been noted by many engineers, and several of the large cities 
are preparing specifications for the installation of destructors to 
dispose of the waste, and are considering means for the use of the 
derived power. It is no longer an experiment, but an accom- 
plished fact that American city waste can be destroyed with 
absolute sanitary protection, with a certainty of obtaining results 
in efficiency and a durability of construction heretofore im- 
possible. 

The Two Types of Destructors. The prevailing forms of Brit- 
ish destructors in present use are broadly divided into two groups 
or classes, differing in forms of construction and in means of 
utilizing the heat obtained from the combustion of the waste. 

First, group, the Cell Destructors follow the original cell, or separate 
burning chamber type. 

Second group, the Continuous Grate furnaces, with burning chamber 
common to all the grates. The whole list of destructors operating by 
high temperatures can be classed in these two types, and it seems desirable 
to give brief descriptions of these in order that a clear idea may be formed 
of their relative value when applied to the disposal of American municipal 
waste. 

THE CELL DESTRUCTOR. 

The Cell Destructor. Figs 55-59, consists of two or more cells 
completely isolated from each other, but discharging into a 
common combustion chamber. This construction of cells in pairs 
is together called a unit. Each is charged, fired and clinkered by 
itself. One cell cannot be of assistance to its neighbor, except so 
far as the gases from both commingle after leaving the cells. The 
arrangement of the cells may be side by side or back to back, or 



DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY BRITISH DESTRUCTOR SYSTEMS. 221 

built in rows, with a combustion chamber or large flue common 
to all, but for the utilization of heat to produce steam power there 
are usually one or more units of two cells with a boiler common 
to both. Some makers place the cells on each side of the boiler. 
Others arrange them in rows with the main flue beneath. These 
arrangements, though apparently different, are for the same pur- 
pose insuring the destruction of the gases from fresh charges 
of waste, so that these in turn shall be made to pas over hot 
surfaces or be mixed with hot gases. 

Each cell has a fire bar area of at least 25 square feet, where 
the actual combustion takes place, and at the back of the bars a 




FIG. 55. THE FIRST FRYER CELL DESTRUCTOR. 

sloping, drying hearth of fire brick, upon which the fresh charge 
is received. The area of this hearth varies with the style of 
destructor, and may be made larger or smaller, according to the 
character of waste consumed. This hearth is usually inclined at 
an angle of 25 to the horizontal, but may be varied as desired. 
The fire bars, as a rule, are heavy, solid cast or wrought iron 
plates, set edgeways with very narrow spacing to admit the steam 
or air blast from beneath and not permit the passage of clinker or 
ashes. Some makers use a short rocking grate at the front of the 
furnace with larger stationary bars behind. 

The Air Supply to the Cells. The ash pits of all forms of 
destructors are closed air-tight and made capable of sustaining 



222 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

pressure, and the air for combustion is delivered to the ash pits 
below the grates, passing up through the waste upon the fire bars. 
Each ash pit is thus divided from its neighbor, and in each the 
forced draft may be applied or discontinued at will. This, of 
course, is when forced draft by steam or air is a part of the partic- 
ular construction. 

The air supply is one of the most important points in connection 
with the cremation of municipal waste. With a limited supply 
the combustion is delayed and temperatures are low. With a too 
abundant volume, the available fuel is consumed to heat the air, 
which leaves the furnace too rapidly to destroy the waste. 

In cell destructors a pressure of one-half to one inch water 
gauge, equivalent to 2.6 to 5.2 pounds per square foot of grate is 



EEB 




FIG. 56. THE SEAMAN & DEAS CELL DESTRUCTOR. 



the most desirable medium. While a certain quantity of air is 
necessary for the combustion, and while this varies according to 
the calorific value of the material destroyed, if a larger volume 
at greater pressure be supplied, there arise different conditions 
which materially affect perfect combustion. With the oxygen of 
the atmosphere is mixed four times its weight of nitrogen, a gas 
perfectly inert for assisting combustion, but having its own 
specific ability to absorb heat. 

The surplus volume of oxygen not actually required for com- 
bustion, united to the correspondingly larger volume of nitrogen, 



DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY BRITISH DESTRUCTOR SYSTEMS. 223 

rapidly takes up the available heat, and the whole uncombined 
volume is carried off to the chimney, lowering the temperature 
of the burning mass upon the grates. Hence the admission of a 
larger volume of air than is actually needed for combustion is as 
detrimental to successful work as is the limitation of the air 
supply. 

Heating the Air Supply. The heating of the air supply is 
another important consideration as affecting the rapidity of com- 
bustion. When air at atmospheric temperature enters a furnace 
it must be raised to the temperature of the incandescent carbon 
in the fuel with which it is to combine before it can aid com- 




FIG. 57. THE HORSFALL CELL DESTRUCTOR. 

bustion, hence a certain amount of heat that has been generated 
is delivered to the incoming air, and the temperature of the burn- 
ing mass is lowered to that extent. For the ordinary refuse- 
burning furnace, this means a loss of efficiency and an increased 
quantity of fuel. For destructors with forced draft that must 
maintain high temperatures, this is a more serious matter, and in 
the most efficient destructors there are arrangements for heating 
the air supply. In one destructor of the cell type the air is made 
to pass through flues alongside the main chimney flue, and 
thence to the furnace through iron boxes built into the sides of 
the furnace at the level of the grates, But most destructor^ 



224 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

of this type do not provide for heating the air, but force it at the 
temperature of the outside air by fans or steam jets into the ash 
pit-and up through the fire bars. Whatever be the means for ob- 
taining the forced pressure of air supply under the fire bars, the 
result is the same in all methods, a continuous current of air, which 
is at all times under control and may be increased or diminished 
according to the conditions required, and the character and 
amount of waste charged into the furnaces at different periods of 




FIG. 58. THE WARNER CELL DESTRUCTOR. 



time. This is especially desirable when destroying bodies of 
animals. 

Utilization of the Heat Generated. In all installations of the 
best destructors, the heat generated by the combustion of refuse 
is utilized in one or another way. The general use is for generat- 
ing steam in a boiler, the power from which is employed, first for 
the operation of the destructor itself and the surplus for any work 
where it can be used to advantage. 

The type of boiler is commongly a water-tube so placed behind 
the combustion chamber that the gases pass directly to the tubes 
with no loss of heat. A Lancashire boiler with large flues is 
frequently employed on account of the heat stored in the volume 
of water. The horizontal multi-tublar boiler of large size set 



DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY BRITISH DESTRUCTOR SYSTEMS. 225 

in the main flue to the chimney was formerly used, but now 
discontinued as an obstruction to the free passage of the gases. 

The best efficiency of a destructor demands that the tempera- 
ture from the combustion of refuse shall be at least 1,500 Fahr. 
This is the point at which all injurious organisms in the waste and 
the inflammable gaseous carbon compounds resulting from im- 
perfect combustion are destroyed. A lower temperature would 
permit these to pass through the boiler and chimney flues and be 
distributed from the chimney top through the surrounding air. A 
higher temperature, 1,800 to 2,500, not only gives better boiler 
efficiency, but also positively insures destruction of all noxious 
gaseous and organic elements. Hence the efforts of all destructor 




FIG. 59. THE STERLING DOUBLE CELL DESTRUCTOR. 



builders are directed to the production and maintenance of the 
highest possible temperature within the furnace and in the com- 
bustion chamber or flues immediately adjoining. This naturally 
leads to the development of the greatest boiler efficiency and the 
use of this power for returning a revenue in some form to the 
advantage of the town. 

But it must always be noted and remembered that the first con- 
sideration is the disposal of objectionable matters. This is the 
purpose of a destructor the main object of its installation. 
Whatever power may be obtained is a side issue, a by-product, to 
be utilized if possible ; if not, then to be ignored until an oppor- 
tunity offers. 

If this power, obtained from waste that would cost large sums 
to dispose of in other ways, can be employed, then the town is 



226 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

so much to the good. If it cannot be at once profitably employed, 
the waste is still disposed of at no greater cost and with the 
certainty of perfectly sanitary destruction, and permits the even- 
tual use of the power and the clinker. 

UTILIZATION OF HEAT FOR AIR SUPPLY TO THE FURNACE. 

After the gases have passed the boiler there is still a large 
amount of heat remaining in them which should be utilized. In 
practical service the cell form of destructor has heretofore been 
unable to conserve this heat for its subsequent use. In one form 
only has this been tried, and the results claimed are equal to the 
best designs of the continuous grate destructor, which are better 
adapted for this purpose, but no results from actual practice have 
yet been reported. 

Manifestly the heating of the air supply is a gain to the general 
efficiency of combustion too important to be ignored. When the 
air is raised to 350 to 400 Fahr. before being supplied to the 
grates, there is a corresponding gain in the time and the force of 
combustion upon the grates. The method .of air delivery is by two 
different forms of apparatus. 

The cell destructors, as a rule, use a fan driven by a motor, 
delivering the air at atmospheric temperature under the ash pits 
at any required pressure. In this case the temperatures of the 
current are those of the volume entering at the fan and but slightly 
above this at the grates, and the air has to be heated to the fur- 
nace temperature to continue the combustion. 

In the continuous grate system the gases from the boiler are 
drawn by the chimney draft down through a series of iron pipes, 
entering at an average of 691 and leaving these pipes at 359 
Fahr. The difference between these figures represents the tem- 
perature of the current of air drawn between the rows of pipes 
and by steam jets forced into each ash pit and up through the fire 
bars. 

This is the regenerator system of the continuous grate destruc- 
tors which deliver the air for combustion at 350 to 400 instead 
of at 70 to 80 as furnished by the fan system. There is an 
obvious advantage by this means not obtained in the other cases, 
and the most recent plants of all types generally adopt the steam 
forced draft. 



DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY BRITISH DESTRUCTOR SYSTEMS. 227 

THE SECOND GROUP OF DESTRUCTORS. 

Continuous Grate with one Burning Chamber. The destruc- 
tors built upon this principle (Figs. 60-65) differ from the cell 
construction in several particulars. Instead of separate and dis- 
tinct cells isolated one from the other, there is one long chamber 
common to all the grates, but divided below the grates into sepa- 
rate ash pits. 

There may be a number of grates, each of approximately 25 
square feet of surface, arranged side by side, and offering a con- 
tinuous area of burning surface the whole length of the series, 




Sectional Plan. 

FIG. 60. THE MELDRUM CONTINUOUS GRATE DESTRUCTOR. 

which may be two, three, four, five or six, as the conditions 
require. 

Since each grate has its own ash pit and its separate forced air 
supply, each may be operated separately, precisely as is done in 
the single cell, with no interference or interruption with the work 
of its neighbor. As the grates are charged periodically, there 
is always one or more at the highest point of temperature in full 
working, while the adjoining one is being supplied with green 
material. Thus, there is no loss of time or temperature in the 
immediate destruction of smoke and gases thrown off from the 
fresh charge, since the active grates supply the heat necessary 



228 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

to continue the combustion and maintain the average tempera- 
ture in the combustion chamber. 

The continuous grate is better adapted to the various forms of 
feeding or charging of the waste, since it may be charged from 
the top through the roof, from the back through charging doors, 
or from the front through the larger clinker doors. 

Choice between these various methods depends largely upon 
the character of the waste the purpose for which the power is 
used, or the location of the several working parts of the destruc- 
tor. In each case the arrangement may be made to conform to 
the special conditions, and any well-designed destructor may be 
adapted to the site. 




FIG. 61. THE MELDRUM CONTINUOUS GRATE WITH BOILER. (LONGI- 
TUDINAL SECTION.) 

Regenerator System of Heating Air for Combustion. The 
first practical application of air regeneration to the destructor 
practice was in connection with a continuous grate destructor of 
the Meldrum type, at Darwen, in 1897. The use of this system 
has in effect changed and revolutionized the art and made it 
possible to destroy waste of low calorific value, and obtain a 
higher temperature with a corresponding increase in rapidity of 
combustion and boiler efficiency. By this method of drawing 
the air for combustion through the series of pipes comprised in 
the "regenerator," aided by the action of the steam jet blower, 
the exhaust heat from the boiler flues heretofore wasted has been 
saved, and the saving brought to the aid of the furnace. 



DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY BRITISH DESTRUCTOR SYSTEMS. 229 

The method of supplying this heated air after its passage be- 
tween the vertical tubes of the regenerator is by means of steam 
jets. Underneath each of the grates in the enclosed ash pit is 
placed a short tube of cast iron which is connected at one end 
with a small pipe direct from the boiler the other end, expanded 
in area, terminating under the middle of the fire bars. The 
steam, in its passage through the blower, carries a volume of 
heated air from the hot air duct, which is forced up between the 
grates and through the mass of material thereon. Thus the air 
for combustion is supplied at a temperature of nearly 300 above 




Cross Section 



FIG. 62. THE MELDRUM CONTINUOUS GRATE. 

the normal temperature of the current which would be supplied 
by a fan blast. 

Nor is this the only advantage of the steam jet system. In 
passing upward through the bed of fire upon the grates, the steam 
is decomposed and "water gas" is formed, consisting of hydrogen 
and carbon monoxide. Both of these gases are burned when 
they enter the main chamber, increasing the temperature at that 
point where it is most wanted, while the oxygen, which is set 
free by the decomposition in the early stage of this process, assists 
the combustion of the refuse. 

Again, the formation of water gas in the bed of incandescent 
fuel on the grate greatly assists in the removal of the clinker, 




230 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

* 

and in some instances exhaust steam is admitted under the grates 
for this purpose. The under side of the clinker thus formed has 
a clean and vitreous appearance, leaving the fire bars with com- 
parative ease, making the work of clinkering less arduous and 
prolonging the life of the fire bars. 

The Chimney and Dust Prevention. High chimneys are not 
wanted in connection with forced draft destructor installations. 
If the chimney be of small diameter and of unusual height, the 
gases, in their passage, acquire a considerable velocity and carry 
with them a larger proportion of dust. On their arrival at the 







FIG. 63. THE MELDRUM GRATES WITH LANCASHIRE BOILER. 

top, the spreading of the gases issuing from the confined area 
lowers their velocity, precipitating the dust on the ground and 
and buildings in the neighborhood. But with a chimney of lower 
height and larger internal area, the ascent of the gases is slower 
and the velocity at the top no greater than in the interior, and 
the dust precipitation is minimized. There are several devices 
for intercepting the dust on its way to the chimney. In one de- 
structor installation there is a brick chamber, or "dust catcher," 
immediately before the chimney, comprising two concentric cir- 
cular chambers with an annular space between. The gases enter 
the outer chamber, and in passing around this acquire a whirling, 



DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY BRITISH DESTRUCTOR SYSTEMS. 231 

circular motion. The centrifugal force imparted causes the dust, 
as the heavier substance, to move to the outer wall, the lighter 
gases passing into the inner chamber and thence up the chimney. 
Th'*s device has been employed in a few installations. 

A better method is an expanding settling chamber interposed 




FIG. 64. THE HEENAN & FROUDE CONTINUOUS GRATE DESTRUCTOR. 
(PLAN AND SECTIONS.) 

in the path of the gases, delaying their passage and causing a 
deposit of the dust after their velocity has been much reduced. 
This is an important feature in the continuous grate type of 
destructor. 

Delivery of the Waste to the Destructor. There are several 



232 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

methods of delivering the waste, dependent largely upon the 
special character of the material to be destroyed. 

The destructors, as a rule, deal with mixed or unsorted waste 
the miscellaneous collection as it comes in the city carts. The 
proportions of each class, garbage, ashes and refuse or rubbish, 
to which may also be added street-sweepings and the carcasses 
of animals, are dependent upon many varied conditions, only to 
be determined by special survey or inspection. Some of the 
more common conditions attending the usual collections of Amer- 
ican municipal waste have been alluded to in previous chapters, 
and so far as can now be done, the proportions of each class have 
been defined. 

Following the practice of those towns where these various 




FIG. 65. THE HEENAN & FROUDE CONTINUOUS GRATE DESTRUCTOR. 

forms of destructors are used, and employing the same method 
of a mixed, unsorted collection of the wastes, it may be positively 
stated that the American municipal waste can be destroyed suc- 
cessfully with apparatus similar to that used abroad. 

Not only can American municipal waste be burned economi- 
cally with no noxious results, but there can be obtained power 
from this waste, in exact proportion to the calorific value of the 
waste. 

But when the several classes of American municipal wastes 
are separated at the houses and the garbage, ashes and refuse are 
separately collected and brought either singly or together to the 
destructor, the means of disposal must be adapted to the charac- 
ter of the waste to be consumed. Here lies one of the chief 
points of advantage of the high temperature destructor systems. 



DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY BRITISH DESTRUCTOR SYSTEMS. 233 

The furnace may be so designed as to cremate one class or kind 
of waste and yet be capable of consuming other kinds or classes 
without change in construction and with only changes in method 
of charging and operating. The addition of power supplied by 
its own boiler provides an accessory impossible to furnaces not 
equipped with this aid. 

In most American towns the custom is to separate, in the 
households,, the garbage from the refuse and ashes and bring 
this to the crematory for destruction. 

This led to the introduction, at first., of a special form of cre- 
matory to burn garbage only, and in the older forms of furnaces 
this is all they can accomplish. Subsequently the rubbish and 
refuse upon the dumps became objectionable and the crematories 
were enlarged in area to burn this also. The bodies of the 
smaller animals are included and very infrequently the carcasses 
of the larger animals must be destroyed. 

As the quantities of garbage, rubbish and animals increase, the 
crematories must be made of larger capacity. Because of their 
operation by slow natural chimney draft, the rate of combustion 
cannot be increased, and the installations must be made of larger 
size, or more numerous, which, of course, means greater expense 
to the tcwns. 

If the cost of operating were lowered with the proportional 
increase in size, there would be some reason for this, but this is 
not the case, for the larger the plant, the more men needed to 
work it, with a corresponding increase in the payroll, to which 
is added the larger amounts of fuel. 

An illustration of this is one incinerator, which in 1902 began 
its work by the installation of a plant costing $31,000 which de- 
stroyed 100 tons daily, followed in 1904 with a plant having a 
capacity of 120 tons at a cost of $70,000, and in 1907 a plant of 
140 tons capacity was contracted for at a cost of $126,000. The 
reported cost of operating, for fuel and labor at this latest plant 
is more than double that at the first installation. 

Since the practice of many American towns is to make sepa- 
rate collections of the wastes, and since this requires the destruc- 
tion of these separately, the destructor builders have now de- 
signed the apparatus to meet this demand. For the disposal of 



234 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

very wet substances there is a drying hearth of greater or less 
area, which receives the charge of fresh garbage and by its 
radiated heat united to the high temperature of the radiant heat 
of the destruction chamber, the moisture is driven off and com- 
bustion begins almost at once. 

This change in the forms of destructors has been noted and 
provided for in the designs of the builders in this country. There 
are many instances of destructors dealing with the most refrac- 
tory classes of wet refuse, like sewage sludge and wet trade waste, 
with nearly the same efficient results as though there was present 
a greater calorific value. The development of steam power is 
not so large, but the destruction is equally efficient and the results 
quite as free from offensive odors and gases. 

The method of supplying the waste to destructors is then 
determined by the character of the material. If it be wet and 
difficult to handle, the charging may be done by special cars or 
chutes direct to the drying hearth. If more free from moisture, 
there is provision for tipping into receiving hoppers or storage bins 
that will retain a day's collection without nuisance. Should these 
wastes be comparatively dry and homogeneous in character, they 
may be fed by hand firing as coal is fed to a furnace. Thus the 
means of feeding the waste, and the construction or arrangement 
of the destructor is governed largely by the special conditions of 
each case, insuring economy of labor and expense, and producing 
the best results in efficiency. 

The Disposal of Residuums. It has been noted previously that 
the ash of American crematories is not in a perfectly vitrified 
form. There is present a considerable proportion of organic 
matter, mixed with fine ash from substances that burn more freely, 
and with the debris and fragments of incombustible matter which 
the low temperatures of the crematory cannot affect. This ash 
has little or no value, except as a surface fertilizer for top dress- 
ing, and therefore must be removed to dumps. 

But the clinker or hard vitreous matter from the combustion at 
high temperatures of a destructor is residuum of quite another 
character. The anaylsis of the two ashes given previously shows 
clearly the difference. The value of clinker when thoroughly 
calcined, lies chiefly in its ready use as foundation for roads, walks, 



DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY BRITISH DESTRUCTOR SYSTEMS. 235 

and all forms of municipal service where concrete is employed. 
It is also used in many kinds of private contract work, where 
broken stone is costly or unattainable. It is also found to be 
suitable for the covering for sewage filter beds and is used for 
under drains. It may be ground up for mortar or mixed with 
cement, formed into slabs or bricks or in many ways and forms 
used in various industrial enterprises. A market can nearly 
always be found for this destructor product, and it is an important 
asset in the accounts of all waste disposal work. 

The Quantities of Waste Consumed. The early forms of cell 
destructors destroyed daily from five to eight tons of refuse per 
cell, or about twenty-two pounds per square foot of grate area per 
hour, but these are now mostly changed or improved by the addi- 
tion of forced draft, and their power for combustion greatly 
increased. 

The continuous grate destructors burn from twelve to twenty 
tons per grate daily, contingent upon the character of the waste, 
the average being fifteen tons. This is at the rate of fifty-six 
pounds per square foot of grate per hour, and may perhaps be 
taken as the average destroyed for these forms of grates. This 
is exceeded in some of the later types of destructors, where the 
amounts run from sixty- four to one hundred and three pounds per 
square foot of grate area. The work of an English destructor 
in this country, burning American mixed waste, was 58.7 pounds 
per square foot of grate per hour. 

THE LOCATION OF THE PLANTS. 

This is the most important, often the most difficult point to 
determine in a proposed refuse disposal station. Since the re- 
peated failures in this country of crematories and incinerators 
because of nuisance, there is prevalent an idea that all waste- 
consuming plants must necessarily be offensive in their operation ; 
thus the authorities nearly always meet with opposition no matter 
where they select a site, ending sometimes in abandonment of 
th* scheme. 

Economy in the collection service demands that the location 
shall be central with respect to the collection district, as this 
reduces the haul to the shortest distance ; also that the road grades 



236 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

for the loaded teams shall not be too steep. As the average cost 
of hauling one ton of garbage one mile is from 60 to 80 cents, 
according to the number of horses and men employed, the saving 
in distance of transportation is an important consideration. 

In most American towns there is no site at the geographical 
center that would permit the establishment of a refuse disposal 
station except in the neighborhood of dwellings, and in this case 
the cost of ground is frequently excessive, and the opposition of 
property-holders very strenuous. Usually a point (preferably on 
the northern side of a thickly populated district) can be had, 
where the collection carts will not be so much in evidence, and 
where the work can be done with lessened chances for complaints. 
When a suitable location can be found within reasonable distance, 
the objections and arguments against it should be carefully stated 
and fully considered. Opposition for sentimental reasons or 
through ignorance of the facts involved should not be allowed 
to outweigh the mature judgment of those best acquainted with 
the subject. 

NUISANCES DEPENDENT UPON TEMPERATURES. 

The discharge of offensive gases from a chimney of a refuse 
disposal plant is caused by incomplete combustion of organic 
matter. Ths gases thrown off are oxygen, O, nitrogen, N, car- 
bonic acid, CO 2 , carbon monoxide, CO, and water vapor or 
steam. In theoretically perfect combustion the carbon monoxide 
burns by uniting with oxygen, leaving the nitrogen which is inert 
and incombustible to be discharged from the chimney. But, in 
practice, this perfect combustion is rarely reached, hence the 
proportion of the empyreumatic gases, present in larger or 
smaller amounts, that are capable of being burned but still are not 
destroyed, must be taken as an evidence of the character of the 
work. 

A competent authority says : "On heating organic compounds, 
decomposition takes place which is known as destructive distilla- 
tion. Many of the resulting gaseous compounds have a more or 
less objectionable odor. When such an admixture of gases is 
exposed to a higher temperature which has been fixed at 1,500 
Fahr. as the safety point they are themselves dissociated or de- 
composed, and the resulting simple gases are without odor." 



DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY BRITISH DESTRUCTOR SYSTEMS. 237 

Another writer says : "It may be stated as an absolute principle, 
that the destruction of organisms must be done within the furnace 
itself. If any of the gases are allowed to escape, with the 
organisms in suspension, the destructor ceases to be of any value 
if it does not become an actual source of danger." 

This is perhaps an extreme view of the case, but it emphasizes 
the fact that the temperature must in the first place be high 
enough to destroy all forms of organic life, and that once begun 
the work must go on to the end at a temperature at or above the 
point of safety. 

GRADUAL DEVELOPMENT OF HIGH TEMPERATURES. 

It is in the particular feature of temperatures that destructors 
with forced draft differ so widely from the usual form of crema- 
tory and incinerator used in this country. The evolution of the 
modern destructor from the early cell type was comparatively 
slow until the introduction of forced draft. For years the cells 
continued to burn small quantities by natural draft with repeated 
complaints of nuisance. The introduction of the "fume cremator" 
by Mr. Chas. Jones, of Baling, England, was a step in the right 
direction and materially advanced the work. This was a wide 
"fuel box," placed in the main flue of the chimney outside the 
cells, or sometimes in a detached chamber, and was kept supplied 
with coke or good coal. All the gases of combustion from the 
cells were made to pass over this live fire. 

It was not until 1897, when this method was abandoned in 
favor of a powerful forced draft under the fire-bars, that real 
progress was made. At the present time all destructor builders 
guarantee a positive temperature maintained within the furnace, 
and, as a rule, fifteen hundred degrees in the combustion chamber 
is the point below which the temperature must not fall. One set 
of specifications issued by an English city provides, "that the 
general arrangement of the grates and flues shall be such that the 
whole of the gases generated in the process of combustion shall 
be submitted to a temperature of not less than 2,000 Fahr. for 
a sufficient time to allow the noxious germs to be destroyed." 

The reports of the trials and continuous operation of the 
destructors abroad, now invariably contain accurate and extended 



238 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

data of the temperatures in various parts of the destructor and 
flues. These serve a double purpose, since they show the absolute 
destruction of offensive gases to the entire satisfaction of the town 
authorities, and also, by comparison of the temperatures taken at 
the same points in the several installations of the builder, it is 
possible to detect a failure of any part to come up to the general 
standard. 

These temperatures range from 1,500 to 2,800 Fahr. A 
table made by a well-known engineer of twenty-six towns with 
installations of six different makers, shows the average tempera- 
tures in the combustion chambers immediately before the boilers 
to be 1,900, and at the base of the chimney 600 Fahr. Some de- 
structors, fitted with economizers, feed-water and super-heaters, 
obtain a still greater heat, instances being recorded of the fusing 
of wrought iron in the combustion chambers at a temperature of 
3,000 Fahr. 

HIGH TEMPERATURES NOT ATTAINED IN AMERICAN PRACTICE. 

In American practice this requirement of temperature is seldom 
or never made in specifications drawn up by municipalities, nor is 
it brought prominently forward by the furnace builders. What- 
ever form of "fume cremator" or "smoke-consumer" the builders 
may propose is assumed to afford sufficient protection for the 
town. Hence the result of the work of the crematory or incin- 
erator so far as relates to the destruction of obnoxious gases 
is often unsatisfactory. Smoke is unconsumed carbon, and 
when discharged from a garbage crematory loaded with the un- 
consumed gases from the destructive distillation of the organic 
matter at low temperatures, these gases will invariably cause 
nuisance in their gradual descent to the ground. 

Any one desirous of obtaining data upon the temperatures of the 
American crematories, would have to experiment for himself. In 
all the years this work has been going on there has been but one 
accurate report that can be quoted. This is by Professors Holman 
and Wendel upon the Brown Crematory, Boston, Mass., 1893, and 
is the only one, so far as known, that gives anything of value as 
regards temperatures. In this case the trial was made to deter- 
mine the quantities and cost of burning the garbage with oil as 
fuel ; the temperatures were a secondary consideration. 



DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY BRITISH DESTRUCTOR SYSTEMS. 239 

In the same year the work of the Engle Crematories at the 
World's Fair, Chicago, Hi., for six months established the fact 
that high temperatures could be maintained by oil fuel, with a 
forced draft, with a combustion chamber of large size and a 50* 
foot chimney. Unfortunately there was no official report of this 
published until long afterward, and there were never technical and 
authoritative reports from competent engineers that would have 
directed attention to this most successful work, and perhaps have 
brought about better designed furnaces and more efficient results 
in the subsequent installations of American crematories. 

It is largely because of this particular feature of low tempera- 
tures that the garbage cremating furnaces in this country fail of 
success. Formerly, and but few years ago, it was held by all the 
furnace builders that high temperatures were not necessary except 
at the fire-box, and this erroneous idea is still advocated by many. 
They rely upon a secondary fire, placed under some division of the 
garbage grates, or at the rear end of the main chamber, or in a 
small compartment cut off from the main chamber by a division 
wall, or else in a separate and detached chamber not a part of the 
furnace. There is no combustion chamber in the true meaning of 
the term; all these substitutes are merely secondary furnaces for 
reheating the incomplete products of combustion from the furnace 
proper, and all, without exception, must use extra fuel. 

A reference to the preceding descriptions of American crema- 
tories will make it clear that this principle of this second fire is 
a necessary part of all the various types of American crematories 
and incinerators. 

There are many points in which the cremator and the destructor 
vary widely, but in none is there so wide a divergence as in the 
means for producing and maintaining a high temperature neces- 
sary to destroy the offensive gases. From a personal experience 
in the construction and operation of both, the author is of the 
opinion that that will be the most successful furnace which can 
develop the temperature necessary to destroy municipal waste and, 
at the same time and with the same operation, consume the offen- 
sive products of combustion thrown off by the waste within the 
furnace itself. 



240 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

OPERATION WITHOUT NUISANCE. 

The operating works of the British destructors seem to be al- 
most completely free from complaints of nuisance from the chim- 
neys. From an extended examination of the statements made by 
the local engineers, surveyors and superintendents in charge of 
these plants, it appears that there are practically no complaints on 
the score of noxious odors from the waste, either in the process of 
charging or in its combustion in the furnace. 

In some instances notes are made of the fine dust in the charg- 
ing rooms when the fires are clinkered, but the later installations 
are provided with a system of ventilating ducts connected with the 
the air supply to the grates, which in a large degree remove this 
objectionable feature. Probably the most reliable accounts on this 
point of nuisance in the work of these destructors is from those 
American engineers who in the past two years have had oppor- 
tunities to inspect closely the English installations. 

One observer in visiting destructors in f6ur London boroughs 
where the plants were almost completely surrounded by dwell- 
ings, found the dust at one point, Shoreditch, very annoying, 
"but no odors were noted, and the chimney was free from smoke." 
At Wandsworth "the plant was in a generally clean condition and 
only a small amount of light smoke was visible at the chimney 
top." At Westminster "no odor was noticed and but little of light 
smoke was coming from the chimney." At Battersea "there 
were no indications of nuisance of any sort in Or about the de- 
structor, and the chimney top was free from smoke." (From 
"Notes on British Refuse Destructors," by M. N. Baker, Associate 
Editor, Engineering News, New York.) 

Another experienced engineer says : "In our country odors 
from such works have been complained of in many instances, and 
a number of crematories have been abandoned as nuisances. In 
England, however, such has not been the case. Furnace ex- 
tensions are built every year. Complaints are rare. In Hamburg, 
Germany, where is the largest garbage plant in existence, this is 
giving no offense, although adjoining a built up section of the 
city." (Mr. Rodolf Hering, in Proc. Anier. Soc. Civil Eng., Vol. 
29, No. i.) 

The conditions attending the work of an English destructor in 



DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY BRITISH DESTRUCTOR SYSTEMS. 241 

this country, burning the mixed waste of the town of Westmount, 
Canada, a surburb of Montreal, are stated in the Report of th? 
Consulting Engineers to the City Council at Westmount, upon 
the Combined Refuse Disposal and Electric Lighting Station. 
"The first piece of apparatus put into operation was the refuse 
destructor, which was tested May 5, 1906. Since that time the 
destructor has been in continual operation, successfully destroying 
with absolutely no smell or smoke, whatever has been brought, 
varying in quantity from fifty tons per day down to five tons." 
Ross & Holgate, Consulting Engineers, Montreal, Jan. i, 1907. 

BRITISH DESTRUCTORS IN AMERICA. 

The first installation of a British destructor for the disposal of 
American municipal waste was at Westmount, a surburb of Mon- 
treal, P. Q., where a Meldrum Simplex Destructor was erected in 
1906. This was followed in 1907 by a Heenan and Froude de- 
structor at Vancouver, B. C. The success of these two installa- 
tions in Canada led to a thorough personal examination of the 
destructor systems of England by the City Engineer of Seattle, 
Wash., Mr. R. H. Thomson, and by Mr. J. T. Fetherston, Street 
Cleaning Commissioner of the Borough of Richmond, New York 
City. 

The city of Seattle accepted the tenders of Messrs. Meldrum 
Brothers, Manchester, and a destructor was installed by them 
which went into operation in January, 1907, and was transferred 
to the city in February. 

The tenders of Messrs. Heenan and Froude were accepted by 
the Borough of Richmond, and a destructor installed in 1907 
began work in March, 1908, and was accepted by the borough in 
May. 

These four installations are at present the only ones operating, 
though contracts have been closed for a Meldrum Destructor at 
Schenectady, N. Y., for the General Electric Company's special 
service, and at Buffalo, N. Y., for a Heenan and Froude destructor 
for the disposal of light refuse. The following reports give the 
results of the work to date : 



242 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

WESTMOUNT (MONTREAL), P. Q. MELDRUM SIMPLEX DE- 
STRUCTOR. 

The town of Westmount is a suburb of the City of Montreal, 
having its own municipal government, and being in all respects 
an independent borough, though really included in the area of 
Montreal. The population of the borough is 15,000, residential 
in character, with few factories or manufacturing works. In 
1904 the authorities began an investigation of existing means for 
disposal, and received from Mr. F. L. Fellowes, borough en- 
gineer, an exhaustive report, giving full details of collection 
service, quantity and character of wastes, estimated costs for im- 
proved system, and recommending the use of a parcel of land 
owned by the borough at St. Catherine's street and Rose avenue, 
for the erection of a combined electric lighting and refuse disposal 
station. 

The most modern and best approved types of generators, 
boilers and destructors were recommended, the whole equipment 
to be of the highest class, with provisions for additions to the 
plant for future extension of the lighting service. With this 
report were submitted plans and estimates for the installation 
of the various units of power, including a Meldrum Simplex 
Refuse Destructor suited to the work required. 

The authorities called into consultation Messrs. Ross & Hoi- 
gate, Engineers, Montreal, and with them contracted for the 
building of the plant, specifying that the Meldrum Destructor 
should be furnished ; contracts for which were made by the 
author in behalf of the Meldrum Company. 

The excavations for the foundations were begun in October, 
and the work was continued through the winter of 1905-6, 
under the many difficulties attending the construction of brick- 
work in Canadian winter climate. The large brick building 
containing the Meldrum Destructor and Boilers, with the Alphons 
Custodis stack, 150 feet high, were finished about the first of 
April. 

Upon the completion of the plant in May, 1906, the official 
test was conducted by Messrs. Ross & Holgate, Engineers, the 
results of which are shown in the following report: 



DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY BRITISH DESTRUCTOR SYSTEMS. 243 

TABLE L. OFFICIAL TEST WESTMOUNT DESTRUCTOR, MAY 3, 1906. 

Duration of test 8 hrs. 32 min. 

Number of cells 3 

Total grate area 7 5 sq. ft. 

B. & W. Boiler, heating surface 2,197 sq. ft. 

Refuse consumed (composition of waste material) : 

Garbage, manure and leaves 1 5% 

Ashes and unburnt (anthracite) coal, cinders, etc 65% 

Iron, wood, bottles, tins, leather, etc 5% 

Refuse, including paper, branches, old furniture, etc 15% 

Total 100% 

WEIGHTS. 

Unscreened refuse, rubbish, garbage, manure, etc 38,090 Ibs. 

Tins, etc., not burned 540 



Net amount consumed 37>55 Ibs. 

Refuse consumed per hour 4,402 

Refuse consumed per hour per sq. ft. of grate 58.7 

Weight of clinker remaining after combustion 15, 880 

Percentage of clinker and ashes to refuse consumed 42.1% 

WATER EVAPORATION. 

Total water evaporated 41,991 Ibs. 

Water evaporated per hour, actual 4,920 

from and at 2 12 F 5,97 

pound of refuse, actual 1.12 

of refuse, from and at 212 F. 1.36 
Water evaporated per pound of refuse from and at 212 F. 

and per sq. ft. of total heating surface per hour 2.72 " 

PRESSURES AND TEMPERATURES. 

Temperature of the outside air, average 55 F. 

Barometric pressure, average 29.5 ins. 

Average steam pressure ' 123. 5 Ibs. sq. in. 

pressure in ash pits 1.74 ins. 

vacuum at chimney base 9-16 in. 

temperature of combustion chamber (by Watkins 

heat recorders) over 1,994 F. 

Highest temperature of combustion chamber over 2,318 F. 

(Copper melted in i| minutes wrought iron was also fused.) 

Lowest temperature in combustion chamber 1,742 F. 

Average temperature of air entering regenerator 75 F. 

" leaving regenerator 206 F. 

" gases entering regenerator 427.5 F. 

Average temperature of gases leaving regenerator 333-7 F. 

Average temperature of feed water 47 F. 



GAS ANALYSIS. 

Percentage of CO2 average of six readings 10 .9% 

highest reading 13.6% 

" " lowest reading (clinkering fires) 4-5% 

TIMES. 

Time taken to clinker one grate io min. 

between clinkerings 2 hrs. 48 

Times each fire was clinkered Three 



244 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 




DISPOSAL OF \\~ASTJE BY BRITISH DESTRUCTOR SYSTEMS. 245 




FIG. 67. REFUSE HOPPER AND CHARGING HOLES, WESTMOUNT 

DESTRUCTOR. 




FIG. 68. FRONT OF DESTRUCTOR, WESTMOUNT. 



246 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

The destructor forms one part of a combined Electrical Light- 
ing and Refuse Disposal Plant used to supply electric power for 
lighting the town. The surplus steam from the destructor boiler 
is utilized as auxiliary to the regular boiler plant, and at times 




FIG. 69. BABCOCK-WILCOX 200-H.P. BOILER CONNECTED WITH 
DESTRUCTOR, WESTMOUNT. 



has been sufficient to furnish all the power required for the 
electric lighting of the whole district. The operation of the 
destructor for two years past is thus reported by the engineers, 
Messrs. Ross & Holgate: 



DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY BRITISH DESTRUCTOR SYSTEMS. 247 

The quantities and seasonal variations in composition of West- 
mount waste are approximately as follows : 

TABLE LI. OPERATING COSTS, WESTMOUNT DESTRUCTOR, FOR 

TWO YEARS. 

Quantity 1906 8 months over 3,000 tons 
1907 12 about 8,000 

COMPOSITION. 
Items Summer. Winter. 

Garbage 60% 20% (including 

Ashes 20% 70% much fine 

Refuse 20% 10% dust.) 

Daily quantity destroyed, Summer, 15-20 tons 

Winter, 30-40 

Estimated coal equivalent per ton of waste (average) 580. 

(Coal cost at $5.00 per ton) 

Total return in cash credited to Destructor, 1906 $3,090.00 

1907 4,636 .00 

Total net operating costs and fixed charges, 1907, including 

interest 4%, depreciation 4% and sinking fund i% 

(after crediting sale of steam to electrical plant) 6,055.00 

Total net operating costs and fixed charges per ton, 1907, 

after crediting sale of steam 75C. 

Total net operating costs, 1907, after crediting sale of steam. 2,423 .00 
Total net operating costs per ton, 1907, after crediting sale 

of steam .30 

Temperature in combustion chamber 1500 2oooF. 

Hours of operation, Summer, 7 A.M. to 7 P.M. 
Winter, 7 A.M. to 7 P.M. 

Because of the unusually large percentage of absolutely value- 
less fine dust-like ash mixed with this refuse, especially in win- 
ter, due to the great number of sifting furnaces installed in 
Westmount houses, and also because of the much higher rate 
of wages paid for operators, the cost per ton is higher than the 
average figures from English destructor service, but with the 
fine ash screened out (as is now contemplated) much larger 
quantities of refuse can be handled, and far better results ob- 
tained ; the cost of operation per ton could also be much reduced 
if the refuse were fed to the destructor furnaces as fast as it 
would burn, instead of being fed comparatively slowly as at 
present. 

It will be clear that a destructor plant operated for power, 
with small amounts of waste, will be more expensive in its work 
than the same plant operated for disposal only, for then the 



248 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

conditions of labor are changed and a smaller number of men 
at less wages are employed. The regular supply of the waste in 
the largest amounts is a most important factor in this calcula- 
tion. During several months when the quantities approached 




Sectional Plan. 

FIG. 70. PLAN, MELDRUM DESTRUCTOR, WESTMOUNT. 

something near the capacity of the destructor, the net cost of 
operating were 7 cents, 15 -cents, and 27 cents per ton, instead 
of 30 cents. When power is not to be utilized a destructor can 




Cross Section 
FIG. 71. CROSS-SECTION, MELDRUM DESTRUCTOR, WESTMOUNT. 

be operated as cheaply as any crematory or incinerator of the 
same relative capacity. 



DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY BRITISH DESTRUCTOR SYSTEMS. 249 



SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. THE MELDRUM SIMPLEX DESTRUCTOR. 

In 1896 Mr. Reginald H. Thomson, City Engineer of Seattle, 
Wash., was instructed to visit American and foreign cities and 
examine their methods of sewage disposal, and those used for 
the collection and disposal of refuse and garbage, together with 




FIG. 72. EXTERIOR, MELDRUM DESTRUCTOR, SEATTLE, WASH. 

the cost of maintenance, with a view to the adoption in Seattle 
of plans for these purposes. He undertook an extended journey, 
visiting the chief refuse disposal plants in the United States, 



250 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

and spending nearly four months investigating the systems of 
disposal in use in British and European cities. 

In his report he says: "After mature reflection upon all the 
information gained, I am clearly of the opinion that the best 
refuse destructor in service at the present time is that made by 
Messrs. Meldrum Brothers, of Manchester, of the accumulative 
heat type heretofore described. * * * Under all of the ex- 
isting circumstances I have unhesitatingly recommended to the 
City of Seattle the erection of this plant, and have heretofore 




FIG. 73. FRONT OF DESTRUCTOR PLANT, SEATTLE, WASH. 

submitted to your honorable body an estimate of its probable 
cost." 

This report was adopted by the city government and a contract 
was made with Meldrum Brothers, Manchester, England, for a 
four-grate destructor embodying some special features; the 
destructor and regenerator only to be built by Meldrum Brothers, 
and the boiler foundation, enclosing building, chimney, ap- 
proaches and platform to be built by the city. Under this con- 
tract the iron and a large part of the fire brick were prepared 
in England and brought by ship to Seattle. Construction of the 
plant was begun in November, 1907, and finished in January, 



DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY BRITISH DESTRUCTOR SYSTEMS. 251 

1908. The fires were started immediately, and the plant has 
been in operation from January 27; and after a preliminary 
trial of thirty days the plant was taken over by the city. 

This destructor is of the Meldrum Simplex type known as 
the "continuous grate" as distinguished from the cell system, 
which is of single cells or chambers acting in pairs. Photographs 
herewith give a clear idea of the exterior of the house, both 
front and rear, and of the front and one end of the destructor. 
There are two inclined approaches of broad timber planking 
which lead to the hopper on the front of the house where wagons 
tip their loads into the receiving bin below. 

The chimney is of reinforced concrete construction 80 feet 




FIG. 74. THE MELDRUM DESTRUCTOR, SEATTLE, WASH. 

high. The house, which was built by the city, is of corrugated 
iron construction, with an adjoining smaller office building which 
contains the weigh-beam for platform scales which loads coming 
to the destructor pass over, the weights thus obtained being 
recorded. 



252 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

This is the first plant of its kind erected in the United States, 
and it includes the most up-to-date arrangements of the special 
ventilating ducts, of the offal hearth for burning very wet ma- 
terial, and the carcass cremation through special charging hole, 
all of which are entirely new ideas first introduced abroad by 
the Meldrum Company and included in this installation by re- 
quest of Mr. Thomson. 

TABLE LIL CITY OF SEATTLE. REFUSE DESTRUCTOR NO. 1. 

REPORT FOR MONTH ENDING JUNE 30, 1908. 

TWENTY-SIX DAYS' ACTUAL OPERATION. 

REFUSE DESTROYED 

Ash Manure Garbage Rubbish 

Percent 37-8% 18.7% 22.2% 21.3% 

Tons burned 666.6% 3 2 9- 2 % 39 % 378.0% 

Total tons refuse consumed 1,764.0 tons = 3,528,000 Ibs. 

Average daily consumption 67 .846 " = 135,692 

Total water evaporated 437,890 gals. = 3,650,075 ' 

Average daily evaporation 16,842 = 140,372 

Pounds of water evaporated per pound of refuse burned i .035 ' 

Average horse-power per hour evaporated from and at 212 F. 200 H. P. 

Wages as per pay roll $1,248 . 2 5 

Cost of burning per ton .71 

Total number of loads consumed i , 500 

Average number of loads per day 57-7 

Average weight of loads 2 ,3 56 Ibs. 

AVERAGE TEMPERATURES FROM DAILY READINGS 



F. 



CO 



Ave. Temp, of 
Atmosphere at 
Time of Reading 
62.5 F. 


Ave. Temp, of 
Combustion 
Chamber 
2369. F. 


Ave. Temp, at A %let% 
Base of Stack genera 

537 F- 86.3 


Ave. Temp, of 
Outlet from 
Regenerator 
313- 6 F. 


Ave. Gain 'in 
Temp, in the 
Regenerator 
227. 3 F. 


Ave. Gas Analysis 
Daily Samples 

CO., 
8-3% 9-i% 


from 



AVERAGE WATER GAUGE, FROM DAILY READINGS 

Water gauge readings at base of stack without forced draft, 5-8 inch. 
Water gauge readings back pressure of ashpit door, No. i grate, i 1-8 inch. 

The destructor has a Babcock & Wilcox water tube boiler of 
200 horse-power. At the present time this power is not utilized, 
but it is expected that it will be employed in the municipal service 
at a later date. 

Reckoning this power at the average value in Seattle of $50 
per horse-power per annum if this be placed to the credit of the 



DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY BRITISH DESTRUCTOR SYSTEMS. 253 

station the operating cost will be reduced to approximately 28 
cents per ton. This corresponds very closely with the cost of 
operating at Westmount, where the net operating costs are 30 
cents per ton. 

MELDRUM SIMPLEX DESTRUCTOR, SCHENECTADY, N. Y. 

The latest installation of the Meldum destructor is now under 
construction at the works of the Edison General Electric Co., 
Schenectady, N. Y., by the Universal Destructor Company of 
New York City, agents for the Meldrum Brothers in the United 
States and Canada. 

In the course of business this company one of the largest 
industrial organizations in the United States, whose works cover 
130 acres of ground, with 15,000 employees there is produced 
a large amount of refuse of various sorts from the different 
departments of the works. The removal and disposal of this 
has heretofore been a matter of some difficulty, and a contract 
was made with the Universal Destructor Company to install .a 
Meldrum destructor of three grates in connection with a 250 
horse-power Babcock & Wilcox boiler. The quantity of garbage 
which comes from the restaurants being small, the plant was 
primarily designed for the disposal of the combustible refuse, 
including wood, shavings, sawdust, sweepings from the shops 
with a great amount of box material, barrels, etc., which could 
not be profitably treated in any other way. The debris and 
leavings from every department of the works is to be all brought 
to this destructor. 

The area of the grates is somewhat larger than in the or- 
dinary Meldrum two-grate destructors, and there will be in- 
cluded an extra charging hole for the reception of sawdust and 
shavings brought over by conveyor from the carpenter shops. 
The charging is all done from the top, with the exception of 
long pieces of wood, for which a special door in the end is 
provided. 

It is expected that the heat realized from twenty or thirty 
tons per day of the material to be destroyed in these works will 
be equal to the evaporation of two to three pounds of water to 
one pound of waste consumed. This ratio of evaporation has 
been obtained by other Meldrum destructors at the Dock Yard 



254 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

Works in Chatham, England, and the great ship building estab- 
lishment of Messrs. Harlan & Wolff, Belfast, where a similar 
kind of material is brought for disposal. This is the first in- 
stance of the utilization of the British destructor system for 
private business purposes in the United States, and its operation 




FIG. 75. HEENAN & FROUDE DESTRUCTOR, VANCOUVER, B. C. 

will be watched with a great deal of interest by other business 
corporations where the same trouble in the disposal of their 
waste and refuse are encountered. 

HEENAN & FROUDE REFUSE DESTRUCTOR, VANCOUVER, B. C. 

The city of Vancouver, B. C. (population 60,000), contracted 
in October, 1906, with the Heenan & Froude Destructor Com- 



DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY BRITISH DESTRUCTOR SYSTEMS. 255 

pany, of Manchester, England, for a refuse destructor of 40 
tons capacity, with covering house, chimney and accessories. 
(Fig. 75.) The plant went into operation in November, 1907. 
The following report, condensed from the official reports for 
five months (January I to May 31, 1908), gives the details of the 
working of this plant: 

TABLE LIU. REPORT OF OPERATION, HEENAN & FROUDE DE- 
STRUCTOR, VANCOUVER, B. C. 

EST.MATED CoLLECTION CosT PER ToN 

Household garbage. 82 % (a) $1.55 not deducting revenue 

Trade refuse 12 % (b) 1.15 deducting revenue. 

Decayed fruit and vegetables 3 % 

Manure i . 5% Average Number of Animals 

Meat and fish offal i % Horses 14 

Sawdust 5% Dogs 27 

Cows l 

100% 

APPARENT VALUE AS A FUEL 

From residential quarters very good, about one-half ashes; business 
sections good; light refuse. Chinese and Japanese section poor, 
large percentage vegetable. 
No fuel of any kind used except what is contained in refuse. 

LOCATION: 

Central; 200 feet from main street, and with buildings on three 
sides. 

TYPE AND DESCRIPTION: 

Heenan and Froude. 

One unit. Three cells. 6sH.P.,'B&W. Boiler. Combustion cham- 
ber. Chimney 120 feet (circular). Fan draft. Heated air. 
Partial exhaust to chimney. 

RATED CAPACITY: 

50 tons (2,000 pounds) per 24 hours. 

APPURTENANCES: 

Fan engine. Feed pump and steam injector. 65 H. P. B. & W. 
boiler. Washington-Lyons steam disinfector (single cradle). 
Two disinfecting rooms. Brick building. Cement floors. 

POWER UTILIZED FOR: 

Fan engine and feed pump. Steam disinfector. Installation of 
electric plant 500 lights, under consideration. 



COST OF CONSTRUCTION: 

(a) Building $11, 500 . oo 

Extras 4-543-30 

(6) Chimney 3 ,900 . oo 

(c) Destructor plant, with boiler and accessories, in- 

cludings team disinfector 2 1 ,2 50 . oo 



(d) Complete $4 1 , 1 93 . 30 



256 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

TABLE LIN. (Continued.) 

COST OF OPERATION: Per Ton of Refuse Destroyed 
(a) 46 cents per ton, deducting revenue. 
(6) 56 not deducting revenue. 

(c) 91 counting in interest and sinking fund. 

STAFF: 

1 engineer at $8 5 . oo per month 

2 firemen qualified engineers " 75.00 ' 

4 firemen " 70 . oo " 

i dumpman " 60 . oo " 

Above, except dumpman, work 8-hour shift. 

REFUSE BURNED: Per Man Per Hour 
i . 04 tons (6 men 8 hours each) . 

SPECIAL NOTES ON PLANT: 

Combustion chamber for incinerating dead animals. 

Storage Hopper capacity 30 tons brick sides cement floor with 
swill hopper and steam jet. Well lighted and roomy. Driveway 
for teams with dead animals for combustion chamber. 

OPERATION OF PLANT: Feeding and Stoking 

Back-hand feed. Stoking through clinkering doors. Clinkering 

from front of furnace into hand barrows. 

Character of clinker 33% of refuse destroyed. Very hard, black, 
well burned. 

GENERAL NOTES: 

Destructor operated chiefly to incinerate decaying vegetable and 

animal matter formerly hauled to general dumping ground. 
Approximate temperature of main flue and combustion chamber 
i , 500 to 2 ,000 F. (vide Electric Pyrometer Jan. 27,1 908 1,765 F) . 

Forced draft 5ii-6oo F. 

REPORTED EVAPORATION: 

.52 pounds of water per pound of refuse. ( pound of water to 
i pound of refuse.) 

NUISANCES: 
None. 

UTILIZATION OF BY-PRODUCTS: 

Clinker reclaiming tide lands west side of incinerator. Under ex- 
periment as road bottoming 

Flue dust used with clinker for binding and rendering surfaces 
smooth. 

Tins, etc., at present no value hauled to dump. 

HEENAN & FROUDE DESTRUCTOR, WEST NEW BRIGHTON, N. Y. 

In December, 1906, the Borough of Richmond, Staten Island, 
one of the subdivisions of Greater New York, contracted with 
the Heenan & Froude Destructor Company of England for the 
installation of a destructor at West New Brighton having a 
capacity of 60 tons in 24 hours of mixed municipal waste'. 
Under the terms of this contract the company furnished the 



DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY BRITISH DESTRUCTOR SYSTEMS. 257 

destructor and boiler, the city providing foundations, chimney 
and covering house, all of reinforced concrete construction. 

The plant was finished for preliminary test in March, was 
officially tested in May, and accepted by the city in June, 1908. 
The following description of the destructor is furnished by the 
builders : 

The parts being all plainly marked in the figure, it will be easy for those 
interested to follow the details on the plan. The rubbish is dumped into a 




FIG. 76. HEENAN & FROUDE DESTRUCTOR, NEW BRIGHTON, N. Y. 



hopper back of the grate cells, large enough to hold one day's collection. 
From here it is fed to the special grates of the furnace. Each cell has a 
reverberatory type arched roof and a separate feeding door. Each also 
has its own clinkering door on the opposite side from the feed door, while 
the individual grates are partially separated by low iron ridges. Apart 
from this all the cells together form one furnace chamber, in that the 
gases from the further cells pass through those nearer the dust settling or 
combustion chamber, and consequently over the burning fuel which they 
contain. The reason why the refuse is shovelled into the cells by hand 
instead of being dumped directly into them is that, in order to secure 



258 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

complete combustion, a reasonable amount of selection should be practiced, 
preventing, for instance, a whole load of wet, raw garbage coming into one 
cell while its neighbor had perhaps nothing but paper and dry rubbish in 
it. Some care in stoking must be exercised to secure good results. 

The success of the Heenan Destructor is largely due tc the complete 
arrangements for perfect combustion. Forced draught is used to accelerate 
and regulate burning; and is furnished by a fan and engine, so as to be 
under complete control. Each ash-pit is separately enclosed, so that air 
pressure may be carried higher in the grate most recently fired. The air 
heated to several hundred degrees F. is driven through valves in the ash- 
pits, and thence through the grates and fuel. The reverberatory arches 
also greatly facilitate the burning of poor fuel by reflecting back the heat 
upon their own grates and those adjoining. By this means an average 
temperature of 2,000 F. can be maintained in the cells with ordinary 
refuse. 

When the refuse has been completely burned it forms a hard vitreous 
clinker, which is broken up with steel slice bars and drawn out of the 
clinkering doors on the opposite side of the cell from the feed doors. 




FIG. 77. FRONT OF DESTRUCTOR, NEW BRIGHTON, N. Y. 



Here it drops into wheelbarrows or through clinker traps to mechanical 
conveyors for removal from the plant. 

The hot and burning gases from the cells next pass through the dust 
settling or combustion chamber, where the usual temperature is maintained 
at about 1,800 F. Here combustion is completed, and all smoke, smells 
and combustible particles consumed, so that when the gases pass under the 
boiler in the next compartment all flame has disappeared. As all objec- 
tionable matter, whether solid or gaseous, is subjected to this temperature, 
no further decomposition and consequent nuisance can result. Carcasses 
of dead animals may be dropped into this chamber whole, and in an in- 
credibly short time they will have been completely consumed, leaving but a 
handful of ashes. Another function of this chamber is to remove from 
the flue gas all non-combustible dust, by settling. Passing through the 



DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY BRITISH DESTRUCTOR SYSTEMS. 259 

boiler, the heat of the gases generates steam, at the rate of one or two 
pounds of water evaporated for every pound of refuse consumed. 

Next the gases pass through the air heater, where all available heat units 
are delivered to the air blown through the cells as forced draught. Thus 
heat otherwise wasted is re-delivered to the furnace to facilitate combus- 
tion. The average temperature of the forced draught should be about 
300 F. Finally, the expended waste gases escape through the flue to 
the chimney. 

A high speed, completely enclosed steam engine is used to drive the 
blower for the forced draught. The steam taken from the boiler for this 
purpose does not exceed about 5 per cent, of the total steam generated. 
The air for the forced draught is drawn from the feeding and clinkering 




FIG. 78. PLAN AND SECTIONS OF DESTRUCTOR, NEW BRIGHTON, N. Y. 



rooms, thus removing all the dust or smells that may be liberated in this 
part of the plant and preventing their escape into the open. 

The following extract from the advance sheets of the official 
report made to Hon. George Cromwell, President of Richmond 
Borough, by Mr. J. T. Fetherston, Superintendent of Street 
Cleaning, gives additional details of this plan. Table No. LIV 
is a summary of the official tests of the West New Brighton 
Refuse Destructor: 

The summary in the table gives a number of features which may prove 
of interest to those concerned in the disposal of refuse. Of course, the 
trials indicate the capabilities of the furnace under the conditions existing, 



260 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

and undoubtedly the results obtained in such a trial are rather better than 
may be expected in ordinary practice. The operating force engaged in 
the work at the plant during the trials consisted of one steam engineman 
and four stokers or firemen. Three of these men were employees of the 
local bureau who had never before worked about any steam raising plant 
and had never had any experience in high temperature work. They had re- 
ceived only two months' training in the work about the furnace. Undoubt- 
edly, with more experienced men, even better results could be obtained 
than those indicated in the summary of the tests. 

After the furnace had satisfactorily met the conditions and requirements 
of the contract and specifications, it was accepted, and on May 2ist it was 
taken over by the city. It has continued to satisfactorily dispose of mixed 
refuse during the trying period when the garbage contained was very high, 
and bids fair to satisfactorily perform its duty in the future, though, of 
course, until the plant has been operated for at least one year its short- 
comings and reasons therefor will not be known. 



COSTS ; 

The capital costs of the plant were as follows: 

Land (100' x 300') $5,000 

Foundations, building, chimney, runway, retain- 
ing wall, etc. . , 39,5oo 

Furnaces, boiler, etc 2 3,995 



There are perhaps more inquiries made concerning costs of disposal at 
the new plant than any other factor connected with it. In every case it 
has been stated that until the plant has been operating continuously 
throughout a refuse cycle, which really covers a period of one year, it will 
not be possible to give any reliable cost data regarding maintenance 
charges. There are still many factors concerning the more effective dis- 
posal of mixed refuse at the new plant, such as the benefit derived from 
the heat abstracted from the clinker in the cooling chamber, the ordinary 
amount of power produced under average operating conditions, the best 
utilization of such power and the most economical treatment of the other 
by-products, including clinker, tins, dust, etc. No decision has yet been 
made regarding the use of the by-products, and it is deemed prudent to 
postpone such a decision till sufficient information has been secured to 
wisely determine the most economical use of the by-products. 



DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY BRITISH DESTRUCTOR SYSTEMS. 261 
TABLE LIV. SUMMARY OF OFFICIAL TESTS, WEST NEW BRIGHTON. 



Test 

No. 



Date of 
Test 



1908 



REFUSE BURNED 



Descrip- 
tion 



Composition, 
Character 



Total 
Refuse 
Han- 
dled 

Tons 



Refuse 
Burned 



Tons 



*8 



May 6 



September 
Mixture 
as per 
Specifica- 
tions 



Components 

Garbage 

Fine Ash 

Coal & Cinders . . 

Clinker 

Glass, Metal, etc. 
Rubbish 

Total... 



46.6 

21 .7 

7.7 

0.6 

8.5 

14-9 



100. O 



Lbs. 

19.875 

9,255 

3,284 

256 

3,625 

6,355 



20.802 



52.0 



42,650 



May 8 



Refuse as 
Collected 



Wet from rain; Sample dried 
gave 38% moisture 



16.315 



16.145 



May 13 



February 
Mixture 
as per 
Specifica- 
tions 



Components 

Ashes 

Garbage 

Rubbish 

Glass, Metal, etc. 

Total. . . 



79-5 

it. 8 

5-3 

3-4 



Lbs. 
31,88! 
4,732 
2,125 
1,364 



20.051 



19.827 



49.6 



40,102 



May 15 



Refuse as 
Collected 



Wet from rain of previous 



17.43 



17.235 



62.7 



5 May 16 Refuse as Relatively dry, representative 
Collected material 



23.847 23-673 59-2 



RESIDUAL 



EVAPORATION PER LB. 
REFUSE BURNED 



Test 
No. 



Clink- 
r.Lbs. 



Ashes, 
Lbs. 



Dust 
(Ap- 
prox.) 
Lbs. 



Tins, 
etc., 
Not 
Fired, 
Lbs. 



Total 
Lbs. 



Per- 
centage 

of 

Original 
Refuse 



Gross 

Actual 

Lbs. 



Gross 
Equiv. 

From 
and at 
212 F., 

Lbs. 



Net 
Useful 
Steam 

for Pow'r 
from & 

at 2i2F. 



10,93 



787 



426 



1,046 



13,189 



3-9 



1.41 



1.31 



8,390 



787 



326 



340 



9,843 



30.2 



1.03 



1.25 



1.16 



11,460 



1,978 



448 



14.293 



35-6 



1-33 



12,965 



669 



389 



14,372 



0.91 



17,344 



19,083 



I .02 
I . 12 



C0 2 



Test 
No. 



TEMPERATURES IN FAHR. 



COMBUSTION 
CHAMBER 



P rt 

go 



I 



17.0 



6.0 



1,846 



1,526 



48.5 



306 



55 



137-4 



16.5 



,526 



380 



287 



55 



133-2 



8.4 



6.0 



1,637 



1,382 



364 



83.9 



268 



12.4 



17.6 



8.6 



1,698 



'.526 



397 



50.6 



288 



54 



136.4 



12.3 



5 12. 9 16.3 7.6 1,792 1,940 1,634 - 



8.a 

is The 



The agent of Heenan & Froude Destructor in the United States 
Power Specialty Company, in Broadway, New York. 



CHAPTER XI. 

BRITISH DESTRUCTORS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD. 

SPECIAL ARTICLE. 
BY W. FRANCIS GOODRICH, A.I.MECH.E., F.I.S.E. 

Having in mind the splendid services which Colonel Morse 
has rendered in the cause of sanitary reform for many years past, 
I gladly respond to his invitation to present the existing situation 
in the United Kingdom, British Colonies and Europe, in so far 
as the final and sanitary disposal of refuse is concerned. 

Thirty years have passed since the late Mr. Alfred Fryer 
erected the first furnaces for burning refuse, coining the term 
destructor, which is now universally understood in all countries 
as the only satisfactory means to an end, the sanitary desideratum 
disposal by fire. 

While in America from the Atlantic to the Pacific during the 
past twenty years not much real progress has been made, it is 
possible to record in Great Britain steady and consistent progress, 
with but very few failures. I shall be well within the mark 
if I say that less than ten destructors have been pulled down or 
abandoned in Great Britain during the past thirty years. The 
earliest destructors erected in this country are still in daily use 
in Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds, Hull and other cities, and 
although they suffer by comparison with modern installations in 
these same cities, yet in fairness it must be said that they have 
done, and continue to do, that work for which they were erected. 

Those American writers who have attributed the progress 
which has been made in Great Britain to the fact that refuse dis- 
posal has been treated as an engineering problem may rest assured 
that they are correct. For many years past a few well-known en- 
gineering firms in England have devoted very close attention to 
those combustion problems and other problems involved in the de- 
signing and erection of destructor furnaces of the highest all- 

262 



DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY BRITISH DESTRUCTOR SYSTEMS. 263 




264 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

round efficiency, with the result that finality in the essential prin- 
ciples has now been reached, and the only possible improvements 
in the future will be in details affecting the labor cost for opera- 
tion, the clinkering process, and the profitable treatment of the 
residuals. Those who have closely followed the progress in final 
and sanitary refuse disposal in Great Britain will agree that the 
demonstration of the fuel value of refuse has been a potent factor 
making for the sanitary ideal. While there must ever be a con- 
stant striving after the highest efficiency in sanitation, yet it 
would be idle to pretend that nearly 250 municipalities in Great 
Britain, would at this time have had destructors in operation had 
the power aspect not been so clearly and conclusively demon- 
strated. 

Many worthy councilors with but a very hazy notion of sanitary 
necessities have been fascinated with the possibilities of power 
production ; to their credit it must be said that they have grasped 
the economic aspect, and realizing that the sanitary ideal could 
be reached without any material addition to the rates they have, 
in not a few instances, led the municipal engineer instead of being 
led by him. 

I have already observed that some 250 municipalities in the 
United Kingdom now have destructors in operation ; in about 
130 cities and towns the destructors are either combined with 
electricity works, sewage works, water works, or other municipal 
undertakings, providing power which would otherwise involve a 
definite expenditure for coal, gas or oil, as the case may be. 

Fig. 78 illustrates the first six destructor cells erected in Great 
Britain, these being the original Fryer cells erected at the Water 
street depot of Manchester Corporation in 1876. 

Still in daily use it is interesting to add that within the past 
three years Meldrum's forced draught and grates have been 
added to this battery of cells at this depot, materially increasing 
the temperature and destroying capacity. 

Fig. 79 will serve to convey to the reader what has been ac- 
complished in the thirty years which have passed since the late 
Mr. Alfred Fryer erected his first destructor cells. 

This diagram will serve to show (i) the total number of in- 
stallations, (2) the number of plants erected by each maker, (3) 
destructors combined with sewage works, (4) with electricity 



DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY BRITISH DESTRUCTOR SYSTEMS. 265 

works and (5) with water works, as also the proportion of idle 
or semi-idle plants (i.e. ), destructors from which the power is 
either only partially utilized for works purposes, or allowed to 
go to waste. 

While the proportion under the latter category may seem high 
it must be remembered that many of these plants are old, being 
erected long before the power aspect of refuse disposal had re- 
ceived any serious consideration. 

Any contribution concerning the present position of refuse dis- 
posal in Great Britain would be incomplete without some reference 



y 




- ?<&? inM.fffefr.M^ftb*. 



I. " " "S*r 

Q - JS,t conM*** with n>wrr PlanT, 



FIG. 80. DIAGRAM THIRTY YEARS' PROGRESS WITH BRITISH 

DESTRUCTORS. 



to the main combinations of destructor and power plant, which 
have played an important part in the later development of British 
refuse destructors. We will, therefore, briefly review the com- 
binations of destructors with sewage works, electricity works and 
water works. 



DESTRUCTORS COMBINED WITH SEWAGE WORKS. 

This desirable combination has found much favor, and at the 
present time some forty-five installations are in operation in 



266 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

various parts of England and Wales, while many similar works 
are projected. 

In not a few towns the sewage works are so located that the 
combination is an impossible one because of the cost of haulage. 
This obstacle, as also the fact that at many sewage works gas 
engines or oil engines are employed, has operated against the 
more extensive adoption of destructors, and, to some extent, will 
continue so to do. To utilize the available power from the solid 
refuse of a community to pump its liquid refuse the sewage, and 
further to utilize the residual clinker from the solid refuse for the 
bacterial treatment of the sewage, appeals to many as an ideal 
combination as indeed it is. 

To the Cathedral City of Hereford belongs the credit of in- 
stalling the first destructor in conjunction with a sewage works. 
This destructor of the Meldrum front-fed type has now been at 
work daily since 1897. About one and one-half million gallons 
of sewage is pumped to a height of 36 ft. in a ten-hour day, the 
total cost of the destructor installation was about 1,200, and a 
coal bill of about 400 per annum has been entirely saved, not one 
pound of coal having been burned since the destructor com- 
menced work, the total cost of repairs and maintenance during 
nine years has been 34 only. Ten tons of refuse are burned 
daily and, in addition to pumping, steam is also provided for 
operating sludge presses, lime mixers and other auxiliary plants. 

The vexed question as to whether or not it is possible for a 
destructor to be operated as a financially reproductive undertaking 
has been clearly disposed of in so far as combined sewage and 
destructor works are concerned. 

In fact, they have exceeded all expectations in most cities 
where an account has been kept of operation and other data of the 
plant. In America there is no doubt as to their success, while in 
Europe and other countries each year generally shows an increase 
in saving when properly managed. There should be little hesi- 
tancy on the part of wide-awake municipalities in adopting this 
plan, judging from the results which have so far been attained. 

The following table, No. LII, clearly sets forth what has been 
done at twelve combined works. It will be observed that in no 
less than seven towns a net annual surplus in relief of the rates is 
shown after meeting all capital and standing charges. 



DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY BRITISH DESTRUCTOR SYSTEMS. 267 



Capital Cost of Destructor and 
Steam- Raising Plant 


1,200 exclusive of boilers and chimney 
12,600 including buildings and chimney 
4,500 exclusive of boilers and chimney 
4,510 including buildings and chimney 
800 exclusive of boilers and chimney 
6.310 excluding chimney only 
5.000 excluding chimney and one boiler 
2 400 including building and chimney 
4.000 including building and chimney 
6,000 including buildings and chimney 
6,800 including buildings and chimney 
4.600 excluding one boiler and chimney 




Labor Cost 
Per Ton of 
Refuse 
Destroyed 


(^TJ M M f>00 OO M M M 




ojS rt 


a *7 
|j 


charges. 


Us!* 


t oo io>0 X ir>oo 


i standing 


|2| 




s 1 

1 8, 






2 13 






=3 






c l^ 






i ^ 






s a! 






a :s 


55 

o 
H 




1 5 




. . . ; ; 


till 




* * * * * * * 


jfS 



(0 


v * 


4 oo- 


00 


N ^ 




o 


^ 


& 


^ ^ 




OO 






K 


M i 


Wl rrj OO 








D 


*2 


O 


.9 vS 


^ (. 






CO 


^ 


^ 


1 1 


II II II 


I 1 


II 




u 


DC 


.0 oo 


>0 M 










g 


1 i 


t"t 










O 


Is 


(gN() 










D 


^ VjJ 


I ^/\S' 










DC 


-*-> 












|- 


2 













s 


j5 v 


00 vO 








* 


111 


2 ijO 


M 










o 


1 3 










\ 


o 

z 


o, |2 


HI Cl 










< 


Q) L 



























u 














1 


^ 










i 


M 

CO 


1 - 




; 







I 


Q 

III 


o 










* 





M 











I 


E 


G 










8 


i 


| 










a 


o 


| 










H 


o 












1 




2 










d 

'rt 


J 


^ 








1 


E 





E 








c 


' C 


z 


*^ t/> 


^ 










D 


i* 








1 


I 1 












4 
\ 


: a 




<S*^ 










2 S 


H 


0^ I 


5 H'VJ 






i 


* "o 


1 h 


! 1 

I M I 


i 5 5 

5 

ilS 








i 1 


^ 

Q Q 


a I 


JI-5 5 


i 


: S 

1/3 

C rt 


^i e 


! 1 






.'o'o 




^ o 


rt 




nnum saved in cai 
3RD URBAN 


1 j 

J2"c3 t 

7j J 

^'U ( 

S ' 
<u"o 


; : Ajter erection 
i : After erection 


clinker. . . 


Sale of old i 
:tor: Saving in C 


clinker and resid.u 




* Lu 


.So 


) 00 

^ ON 


2*0 


1 


-s 




fl> f~ 


^ O *" 




3^ 


tr 


0) 




if 


51 i 


r 
o N 




1 


1 

1 




is 

1 u 


l 1 

:* ^ 


r ; 


uiJiiiiy u 

venue fr< 




1 


venue fn 






E-S 


I 


*S 


tn 


e 




rj < 


!> 


3 i s .< 
a i 


s| 


'15 


3 




*-\ ?* 

-*- r- 




> 







^ 






"3 


1 




a 








O K 

* 


5- - 





c 







268 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

The following interesting figures are available from Eccles for 
the past year, these being extracted from the annual report of 
the Medical Officer of Health, Dr. W. M. Hamilton, M.D., 
D.P.H. : 

TABLE LVII. REPORT ON ECCLES DESTRUCTOR. 

Total weight of refuse destroyed 10,975 tons 

Average weight of refuse destroyed daily 29.79 

Labor cost per ton of refuse destroyed njd. 

Total water evaporated 20,429 360 Ibs 

Daily evaporation 66,550 

Average evaporation throughout the whole year per Ib. of 

refuse destroyed i .002 ' 

H.P. developed continuously at 20 Ibs. per H.P 138 H.P. 

Total weight of clinker. 3,464 tons 12 cwts. 

Percentage 32 .57 

Revenue from " ^433 is. 46.. 




FIG. 81. PLAN AND SECTIONS, MELDRUM DESTRUCTOR, WITH 
LANCASHIRE BOILER, WATFORD. 

"The pumping and treatment of the sewage of the borough 
has been carried on without intermission the whole year through. 
The destructors (Meldrum's front-fed type) have also been in 
continuous .operation. The whole of the steam required for the 
pumping engines has been evaporated by the refuse destroyed in 
the destructors." 



DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY BRITISH DESTRUCTOR SYSTEMS. 269 

THE WATFORD DESTRUCTOR AND SEWAGE PLANT. 

One of the most successful combined sewage and destructor 
works is that of the Watford Urban District Council, situated 
about 17 miles north of London. 

Here a Meldrum front-fed regenerative destructor deals with 
an average of about 27 tons of refuse daily, working continuously 
for about 150 hours per week. Steam is supplied at a pressure of 
1 20 pounds to Worthington pumps and air compressor engines. 




FIG. 82. DIAGRAM ONE DAY'S RECORD OF STEAM PRESSURE, 

WATFORD. 

About one million gallons of sewage is pumped every 24 hours to 
a height of 84 feet, while an additional half million gallons is 
dealt with by the air compressors and ejector plant. 

The destructor was started on March 31, 1904, and the forego- 
ing figures (Table LVI) covering the first two years of working, 
are perhaps without parallel among combined works of the kind. 



270 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

After meeting all capital and standing charges, there remains a 
net surplus in relief of the rates of about 150 per annum. 

Fig. 8 1 illustrates the general arrangement of the destructor 
plant at Watford; it will be observed that in addition to steam 
generation the hot gases after passing the boiler are further 
utilized for heating the air for combustion in a Meldrum re- 
generator and also for heating the boiler feed water in a Greens 
economizer, the temperatures being respectively about 300 F. 
and 250 F., the heating surfaces of the boiler, regenerator and 
economizer reducing the temperature of the gases from an average 
of 1, 800 F. in the combustion chamber before the boiler, to 
about 400 F. at the chimney base. 

Fig. 82 is reproduced from steam pressure recorder diagrams 
and clearly shows how steadily the pressure is maintained through- 
out one day's ordinary work. The diagrams of a week's work are 
almost exactly identical with this. 

CLINKER FOR FILTER BEDS. 

The value of destructor clinker for bacteria beds has now been 
clearly established and there is an enormous and constant de- 
mand for large quantities all over the country. 

It is no exaggeration to say that in good vitreous clinker has 
been found the most suitable material yet discovered. At Alder- 
shot Urban District Council Sewage Works some beds made up 
with destructor clinker over five years since are still in use with 
the original material, while at these works, coke which was 
previously used has disintegrated, and after being removed as 
useless it has been passed through the destructor with refuse, 
emerging therefrom as a useful clinker to be again used in a 
changed form for the same duty. 

A year since, when the writer was invited to give evidence 
before the Royal Commission on Sewage Disposal concerning 
the cremation of sludge, he was also requested to lay before the 
Commissioners some evidence regarding the combination of de- 
structors with sewage works. 

Some very exhaustive tables prepared by the writer for this 
purpose will be found in the next report of this Commission, and 
to those especially interested in combined destructor and sewage 



DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY BRITISH DESTRUCTOR SYSTEMS. 271 

works these tables should be exceedingly useful, bringing to- 
gether a mass of facts and figures in concise form. 

What the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Sewage 
Disposal will be concerning this combination remains to be seen ; 
it has been facetiously suggested that ere their labors are com- 
plete every sewage works will be a combined undertaking. 

DESTRUCTORS COMBINED WITH ELECTRICITY WORKS. 

During the past ten years some 70 municipal authorities have 
adopted this combination, generally speaking, with very satisfac- 
tory results. While the production of electric light from refuse 
has held many Councillors with a peculiar fascination, it never 
has appealed to the Electrical Engineer, and although many are 
now disposed to adopt a more friendly attitude towards the com- 
bination, it is no exaggeration to state that the progress which 
has been made is, on the whole, not due to the Electrical Engineer, 
but rather in spite of him. 

Electricity works are usually centrally located and their position 
offers an ideal site for the destructor from the point of view of 
haulage costs. As the cost of refuse collection and haulage has 
nothing whatever to do with the electricity department, the Elec- 
trical Engineer cannot be induced to consider this factor an all- 
important factor from the ratepayers' point of view. 

The view of the Electrical Engineer has been purely depart- 
mental or personal ; he does not want the destructor ; why should 
he have it? The question of cartage costs or power utilization, 
both of vital importance to the ratepayers, do not, as a rule, appeal 
to him, although he is their servant. 

While this narrow and illogical view has not been without its 
effect in thwarting the adoption of destructors in combination 
with electricity undertakings, yet very satisfactory progress has 
been made. It is not possible to include figures such as those in 
Table No. LI I or similar to those available and here included in 
connection with combined destructor and sewage works, not be- 
cause the destructor is minus a satisfactory financial side, but 
rather because accounts are not kept in that clear and separate 
form which is so desirable with every municipal undertaking. 

While a steady pumping load is undoubtedly the better load for 
a destructor, yet the work which is being done both at lighting 



272 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 



and power stations, as also at traction stations, is very satis- 
factory, and perfectly justifies the combination of destructors and 
the fullest possible utilization of the power. 

At the present time about 4,500 tons of refuse are being des- 
troyed daily at such works, the electrical output per ton of refuse 
destroyed varying from 25 to 100 Board of Trade units. The 
highest recorded results are set forth in Table No. LVIII and may 
with advantage be compared with the recent results obtained at 
Westmount, Montreal, which are also included. 

TABLE LVIII. SOME RECENT RESULTS IN POWER PRODUCTION AT 
COMBINED ELECTRICITY AND DESTRUCTOR WORKS. 







Water Evap- 


Electrical 






orated 


Board of 


WORKS 


Duration of 


Per Ib. of 


Trade 




Test 


Refuse from 


Units per 






and at 212 


Ton of 






F. Ibs. 


Refuse 


Stoke-on-Trent 


1 5 hours 


2.6 


108.1 


Nelson 


8 max'm 


2 -35 





" 


5 weeks avg. 


2 12 


104 


Todmorden 


ii hours 


2 .09 




Burnley 


i ord'y week 


2 .OO 




Bangor 


7 J hours 


.08 




*Cambuslang 


6 " 


02 


Q7 


t Woolwich 


24 


.917 


IOO 


Preston 


9" 


7 


100 24 


^Westmount 

















Temperature of combustion chamber at start 7SOF. feed water 460F. 
j-Test conducted by the National Boiler Insurance Co. Ltd. 

PRESTON COMBINED ELECTRIC TRACTION AND DESTRUCTOR 

WORKS. 

The Combined Electric Traction and Destructor Works at Pres- 
ton are among the most interesting and convincing in Great 
Britain. Here for the past eighteen months the entire traction 
service of this important town has been operated from the town's 
refuse alone, not excluding Sundays and holidays. 

Some thirty cars are in operation for about seventeen hours 
daily over about nineteen miles of track, and as much at 1,000 
per week has been taken in fares. About 21,000 Board of Trade 
units are generated every week from refuse alone, or an average 
of about 60 units per ton of refuse destroyed. 



DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY BRITISH DESTRUCTOR SYSTEMS. 273 

The destructor plant comprises 4.4 grate Meldrum front-fed 
regenerative destructors, total capacity about 250 tons daily, 4.30 
x 8 ft. Lancashire boilers for 200 pounds pressure, regenerators, 
and Greens economizers. A special feature of this installation is 
the special offal charging arrangement and also the unique pro- 
vision made for cremating large carcasses without handling. 

At Swansea (South Wales) a five-cell back fed Horsfall de- 
structor is combined with a sub-station and provides power for 
traction purposes. During a recent test an evaporation of 1.20 
pounds of water per pound of refuse was obtained, about 60 tons 
of refuse is destroyed daily and an electrical output of 32 units 
per ton of refuse destroyed has been obtained. 

This plant can, however, scarcely be compared with that at 
Preston, as although the weight of refuse destroyed daily is 
similar at Swansea, coal firing is there arranged for in connection 
with the destructor boiler, while the track at Swansea is only 4^2 
miles (route length) as compared with over 19 miles at Preston. 

ELECTRIC LIGHTING AND DESTRUCTOR WORKS AT STOKE-ON- 

TRENT. 

It has already been observed that at Preston the whole of the 
power required for the operation of the electric traction service 
is provided from refuse alone. At Stoke-on-Trent it is possible 
to record over a period of nearly two years a similar result in 
connection with a combined lighting station; from about thirty 
tons of refuse daily sufficient steam is produced to supply all de- 
mands for public and private lighting, no coal whatever being 
used, in fact no coal-fired boilers are installed. The destructor 
and power plant which is similar (although smaller) than that at 
Preston is illustrated in Fig. 83, while Fig. 84 illustrates the 
large plant of twelve grates of the Meldrum type combined with 
three 250 h.p. Babcock & Wilcox steam boilers, at the Borough 
of Woolwich, London. 

Nothing can be quite so convincing either among combined 
sewage or electricity works as those few works where no coal 
whatever is burned, and w r here no supplementary coal-fired boilers 
are installed ; where refuse is relied upon as the only fuel, there 
can be no criticism, and such instances afford a very conclusive 
answer to those who still doubt the fuel value of refuse. 



274 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 



The latest combined electricity and destructor works is that at 
H. M. Royal Dockyard, Chatham; the destructor is of the Mel- 




FIG. 83. DESTRUCTOR AT STOKE-ON-TRENT, ENGLAND. 




FIG. 84. DESTRUCTORS AT BOROUGH OF WOOLWICH, CITY OF 
LONDON, ENGLAND. 

drum regenerative front- fed type and will deal with about three 
tons of refuse per hour for eight hours daily, supplying steam at 



DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY BRITISH DESTRUCTOR SYSTEMS. 275 

200 pounds pressure to the adjoining main generating station re- 
cently constructed by the Admiralty. 

In thus deciding to utilize a large quantity of refuse, the British 
Admiralty have followed the lead of many municipal authorities. 
The results at Chatham Dockyard, owing to the character of the 
refuse, will, in all probability, be far better than anything yet re- 
corded in connection with combined undertakings. 

DESTRUCTORS COMBINED WITH WATER WORKS SHEERNESS. 

Among destructors combined with water works, the most suc- 
cessful example in this country is that at Sheerness, a plant which 
has been inspected and was favorably commented upon by some 
few American engineers. Here for three years past the destructor 
has shown a net surplus in relief of the rates of over 400 per 
annum, the total cost of repairs and maintenance being less than 
10. 

The destructor is of the Meldrum regenerative front fed type, 
and deals with about fourteen tons of refuse daily; the total cost 
of the plant, excluding the chimney only, was 3,600. 

Only two other works of this kind are in operation, a small 
plant at Hunstanton and a large plant at Blackburn. It is a com- 
bination which does not attract, owing to fear of contamination, 
but in cases where the reservoirs are not located at the pumping 
station or where covered reservoirs are used, with a well-designed 
destructor plant no trouble need be feared. 

While the water works at Sheerness are in a very central posi- 
tion, water works as a rule are even further removed from in- 
habited areas than are sewage works, and for this reason, if for no 
other, the erection of destructors at water works will be limited. 

CLINKER UTILIZATION. 

Having destroyed, or rather changed, the nature of the refuse, 
we now have, according to the season of the year and other con- 
ditions, from 22% to 35% of vitreous clinker, free from organic 
matter and useful for many purposes. In so far as this country 
is concerned the writer is still firmly convinced that where a good 
vitreous "commercial" clinker is produced there is not, nor has 
there ever been a "clinker problem." Where an unsatisfactory 
clinker is produced, due either to an inefficient destructor or ineffi- 



276 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

cient handling of a good destructor, the authorities can only blame 
themselves if they are faced with what they are pleased to term a 
problem, and have to pay to get rid of a useless material. 

Whether their choice of a destructor was at fault or, on the 
other hand, whether their management is loose, they are to blame. 
In a few cases of this kind the clinker is a source of trouble and 
expense, but these are isolated cases, fe.w and far between. Gener- 
ally speaking, clinker is a good asset, and in many cases it is a very 
material source of revenue. 

Whether plant of any kind be installed or not for treatment of 
the clinker must always be determined by the local conditions. 
It is, for instance, a sheer waste of public money to install a 
plant of any kind if the clinker can be sold at a good price as it 
comes from the destructor. 

At the destructor works of the Metropolitan Borough of 
Wandsworth, London, all the clinker is thus sold just as it comes 
from the destructor at is. 9d. per cubic yard, and so great is the 
demand for it that all day long it is being shoveled into carts 
long before it is cold. 

At Watford Destructor Works, all clinker is similarly sold at 
is. 8d. per ton on the ground just outside the works. Under such 
circumstances it would be folly to incur a large expenditure for 
brickmaking plant, or even the moderate expenditure involved in 
the purchase of a mortar mill or a crushing and screening plant ; 
their products are not wanted, while the untreated clinker is, 
and the revenue is accordingly a net one. 

In many towns there is a great demand for destructor clinker 
mortar, and at the present time over 300 mortar mills are in daily 
operation at such works ; in every case there is a net profit, while 
the mortar is considered by some to be too good for ordinary 
building purposes. 

Where clinker can be utilized for bacteria beds, or where it 
can be best sold graded, crushing and screening plants have been 
installed. Some twenty-five works in this country now have crush- 
ing and screening plants in operation. 

The utilization of clinker for bacteria beds has already been 
referred to; the sale of clinker for this purpose or its utilization 
instead of coke, coke breeze, ballast and other media is in many 
cases a source of considerable revenue. 



DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY BRITISH DESTRUCTOR SYSTEMS. 277 

Some twenty municipalities are now operating clinker paving 
flag plants with excellent results ; given a good clinker, very dur- 
able flags are produced at a saving to the ratepayers. Naturally 
the most convincing figures in this connection are those from the 
larger towns and cities, where the demand is such that the plant 
can be operated continuously. Clinker brick-making plants have 
now been installed in some half dozen towns in England and 
very fine bricks are being produced. 

The manufacture of mortar, paving flags and bricks from 
clinker has met with much opposition in this country from those 
who are generally opposed to municipal trading. Such opposition 
is perhaps the most convincing testimony as to its success. 

It is contended that mortar must not be made and sold by a 
municipality in competition with a ratepayer, that a local authority 
should not even be permitted to make paving flags or bricks, be- 
cause by so doing established industries are threatened. The 
height of absurdity has perhaps been reached when those who 
manufacture and sell carbolic powder protest against the use of 
flue dust as a base for carbolic powder, although the municipality 
purchases the carbolic acid. 

Hampered thus on every hand, remarkable progress has been 
made, and greater progress will undoubtedly be recorded in the 
near future. 

CONTINENTAL PROGRESS. 

On the Continent refuse disposal is now engaging the atten- 
tion of many municipa 1 authorities and, in spite of the activity of 
German engineers, British destructors are likely to be extensively 
adopted. The Herbertz destructor, designed to some extent on the 
lines of the most successful British types, has been adopted at 
Fiume, Austria, and very satisfactory results are reported, but 
there is no reason to suppose that this destructor can show such 
efficiency as may be obtained with British destructors properly 
adapted for dealing with the varying refuse of Continental coun- 
tries. The Horsfall Destructor at Hamburg (Bullerdeich) which 
has been considerably altered during the past few years, is re- 
ported to give much satisfaction. Destructors of the same type 
have been erected in Zurich and Brussels. Russia can now boast 
of two destructors, one at Czarskoe Selo, the other a small ex- 



278 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

perimentary plant at St. Petersburg, both of the Horsfall type, 
and curiously enough, after years of contemplation, both de- 
structors were erected during the past year, when that unhappy 
country was in the throes of revolution. 

At Fredericksburg (Denmark) a destructor of British make 
has been erected, but at present there is no sign of further prog- 
ress in Scandinavian municipalities. 

During the present year the first destructors to be adopted in 
France will be erected in Paris, comprising three distinct in- 
stallations of the Meldrum patent regenerative top-fed type. 

Each of the three works will be equipped with 3.4 grate de- 
structors, Babcock & Wilcox boilers, 9.4 grate plants in all, hav- 
ing a combined total destroying capacity of between 500 and 600 
tons daily. 

The town of St. Etienne has ordered three Meldrum destructors 
having a total capacity of over 200 tons per day. 

Holland, Greece and Turkey cannot report progress at present ; 
in the former country British destructors are now being con- 
sidered for some of the most important municipalities. In Greece 
there is not a whisper of sanitary refuse disposal. Turkey is 
equally apathetic; the dogs of Constantinople, ever multiplying, 
continue to account for the garbage of this interesting and his- 
toric city whose authorities at present seem quite content to avail 
themselves of the services of these willing and unpaid scavengers 
for all time. 

What has been accomplished in Great Britain has not been 
without its effect upon municipal engineers in Continental Europe ; 
there are abundant signs on every hand that when the present un- 
satisfactory methods of refuse disposal no longer satisfy, British 
destructors will be favored as offering a definite solution of what 
must everywhere become a serious problem. 

PROGRESS IN THE EAST. 

In Cairo a four-cell Horsfall destructor was erected about two 
years ago. Alexandria, the Egyptian city of scarcely less im- 
portance, has recently decided to adopt a British destructor. 

Further east, in India, but little progress can be reported. 
A Baker destructor has been erected in Calcutta, which plant deals 
with about 130 tons daily. At Karachi, in the Punjab, are 



DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY BRITISH DESTRUCTOR SYSTEMS. 279 

two Warner destructors, erected some few years ago, now op- 
erating. 

At Singapore (Straits Settlements) a four-cell Horsfall de- 
structor will be erected during the present year. 

Nothing has yet been done in Japan, but coincidently with the 
advance of Western civilization there will surely be a decided de- 
mand for sanitary improvement. In China, notoriously dirty, no 
progress can be recorded; even in the important cities of Hong 
Kong and Shanghai disposal by fire has yet to be adopted. It is, 
however, but fair to add that the garbage of the latter city is in 
constant demand for manurial purposes. 

Kipling has said that "East is East and West is West, and never 
the twain shall meet." In final sanitary refuse disposal they cer- 
tainly will meet; with advancing civilization and a growing de- 
mand for sanitary reform there is not the slightest doubt that the 
time is coming when the ideal of the West will be the ideal of the 
East. 

PROGRESS IN AUSTRALASIA. 

In Australasia progress is somewhat slow, but interesting- de- 
velopments may be looked for during the next few years. The 
important municipalities of Australia have moved very cautiously, 
notwithstanding the constant trouble arising from the tipping of 
refuse. In Sydney is a six-cell Warner destructor erected four 
years ago ; a new plant of greater capacity was projected two 
years since, but tenders have not yet been accepted. A Manlove 
destructor was erected in Melbourne (South) several years ago, 
and the authorities of this important Victorian city are likely to 
erect a modern plant in the near future. The municipality of 
Perth have recently decided to erect a Horsfall destructor; other 
cities such as Adelaide, Brisbane and Newcastle continue to con- 
template cremation as the only way out of an ever-increasing 
difficulty. 

At Toowoomba, near Brisbane, a Meldrum destructor of the 
Beaman & Deas type was erected about three years ago, specially 
arranged for the cremation of refuse and excreta. Annandale 
and Leichardt, two small townships on the outskirts of Sydney, 
have a Meldrum regenerative front-fed destructor, which deals 
with the refuse of both towns, some 25 tons daily. 



280 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 



New Zealand has, perhaps, a better record than Australia, 
viewed from the standpoint of modern British practice. At Christ- 
church a Meldrum Beaman & Deas destructor was erected about 




FIG. 85. DESTRUCTOR AT ANNAN DALE, AUSTRALIA. 




FIG. 86. DESTRUCTOR AT CHRISTCHURCH, NEW ZEALAND. 

four years ago in combination with the municipal electricity 
works (Fig. 86). The city of Auckland also has erected a three- 
grate Meldrum regenerative top-fed destructor in conjunction 



DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY BRITISH DESTRUCTOR SYSTEMS. 281 

with the electricity works. This plant has been in operation 
for some few months past and, like the Christchurch plant, with 
very satisfactory results. 

Wellington has a destructor of the Fryer type, erected several 
years ago ; a modern destructor of British make has recently been 
decided upon and will be erected in the near future. 

SOUTH AFRICA. 

At East London and Durban (Natal) destructors of the Warner 
"Perfectus" type were erected some years ago, and these, the 
first destructors in South Africa, required the use of coal as a 




FIG. 87. MELDRUM DESTRUCTOR, JOHANNESBURG, SOUTH AFRICA. 

supplementary fuel. Within the past two years a Horsfall three- 
cell destructor has been erected in- Durban, a plant of the same 
type and size at Bloemfontein, and a two-cell Horsfall destructor 
at Lorenzo Marques. 

At Kalk Bay (Muizenberg), "the Brighton of Cape Colony," 
is a Meldrum two-grate plant which is operated in combination 
with a large generating and main drainage works. Johannesburg 
has three four-grate Meldrum patent regenerative top-fed de- 



282 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

structors, which deal with nearly 200 tons of refuse daily; here, 
as at Kalk Bay, the power is fully utilized. It is worthy of note 
that the clinker at Johannesburg is a source of revenue, large 
quantities having been sent even as far as Bloemfontein sewage 
works for the bacteria beds there. The municipality of Pretoria 
has recently decided to install a Meldrum regenerative top-fed de- 
structor to dispose of some 40 tons of refuse daily. The plant will 
have a capacity of 60 tons daily. 

THE GENERAL DISTRIBUTION OF DESTRUCTORS. 

It will now be clear that the British refuse destructor is an 
established success, in many countries. The many foreign and 
colonial installations are shown in the following table (No. LIX), 
and it must be obvious that the experience gained in the treatment 
of a great variety of waste in a number of countries has placed 
the leading makers of destructors in England in a very strong 
position. 

It is but fair to argue that those destructors which are success- 
fully dealing with a variety of waste in tropical and other coun- 
tries could be readily adapted to the requirements of American 
municipalities and in the treatment of the waste of such munici- 
palities a useful experience would be brought to bear upon the 
problem. 

There are obvious difficulties to be faced in connection with the 
choice of the site ; there ever will be ; ignorance has always to be 
combated, but those who have the interests of the ratepayers at 
heart must be prepared for opposition. With well over 100 de- 
structors in operation on central sites in the United Kingdom, 
very few complaints have been made. 

Needless to add to insure such a result the destructor must be 
well designed, contained within suitable buildings, efficiently 
operated and carefully supervised. Under favorable conditions it 
should then be, if not actually self-supporting, at any rate such 
a small charge upon the rates as would pass unnoticed by the 
intelligent citizen who realizes to the full the great sanitary gain. 

The method of disposal by fire may be accepted as the most 
satisfactory and universal way of dealing with all forms of worth- 
less matter, and it is interesting to note that the beginning of the 
movement in the United States and Canada is announced by the 



DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY BRITISH DESTRUCTOR SYSTEMS. 283 

installation of four British destructors, all of which have been 
entirely successful in their performance. A contract has also been 
recently closed for another. At the present writing the American 
towns are asking for additional information regarding the opera- 
tion and capacity of these destructors. With the better knowledge 
of the efficiency and capacity of these furnaces as applied to 
American conditions there will undoubtedly be an expansion of 
this business such as has attended the growth in Great Britain 
and the Colonies, and the continental countries within the last 
six years. 



TABLE LIX. BRITISH REFUSE DESTRUCTORS THROUGHOUT THE 

WORLD. 



MAKER 


Great BritairJ 
and Ireland 


Continental 
Countries 


Australasia 


o 

li 

** 
1:1 

w^ 


South 
America 


S 

0} 

w 
1 


Canada 


V) 

oi 

S3 

a co 

fa 


CQ 

3 
8 


Meldrum Bros. . . 


77 


6 


7 


4 


2 


2 


i 


2 


101 


Horsfall Des. Co. 


60 


7 


2 


5 


2 


2 






78 


Manlove, Elliott 




















&Co 


63 


i 


2 


i 


2 








69 


H e e n a n & 




















Froude 


35 


2 


I 








i 


I 


40 


Goddard, Massey 




















& Warner 


28 




I 


2 




I 






3 2 


Hughes & Stir- 
ling Co 


7 




o 












8 


Jos. Baker & 


/ 


















Sons 


1 








2 


I 






4 




















33 2 



NOTE Tnis paper was written by Mr. Goodrich in 1906, and all statements refer to 
the conditions at the end of that year. 

The table LIX is compiled by the author from available data ED. 



PRAHRAN, AUSTRALIA. THE MELDRUM SIMPLEX DESTRUCTOR 

AT PRAHRAN. 

In 1907, Mr. W. Calder, City Engineer of Prahran, Australia, 
was instructed to proceed to England and examine the several 
types of refuse destructors in view of an installation for the city 
of Prahran. After inspecting a very large number of installations 
he contracted for a Meldrum Simplex Destructor with some 



284 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

special features of the latest design. This destructor was built 
in the latter part of 1907, and has been in operation since the 
spring of this year. It is probable that Australian conditions are 
very much more similiar to our own than they are to those of 
England, and the reports that followed the first operation of this 
destructor will be of interest to all American readers. 

Prahran has 40,000 population and is to some extent a residen- 
tial suburb of Melbourne. All the refuse of the town was pre- 
viously dumped, after being hauled a long distance, which disposal 
created objectionable nuisance. The recent composition of the 
refuse we have no record of, but in 1900 that of Melbourne and 
Prahran was reported to be as follows: 

COMPOSITION OF TOWN'S REFUSE. 





Melbourne 


Prahran 


Cinders, coke and ashes 


26 < t; 


AT. 08 


Sweepings, fine dust, sand, etc 


42 .81 


26.23 


Vegetable matter, garden refuse, etc 
Paper, wood, straw, combustibles 


14.31 
-'' n-57 


17-57 
9- 2 5 


Rubbish, glass, iron, incombustibles, etc 


4.76 


3.87 




100 .00 


100 .00 



The plant just completed comprises two independent units of 
two grates or cells each, and two Babcock & Wilcox boilers, each 
of 200 horse-power. The enclosing structure is all of brick with a 
brick chimney, 135 feet high, and the tipping floor is reached by 
a ramp, a substantially built incline of earth between two retain- 
ing walls. The advantage of the two independent units is the 
opportunity offered to clean the flues and furnaces without any 
cessation of destruction and resultant accumulation of refuse, 
which would be very objectionable in this residential locality. 

The amount of refuse destroyed is about thirty tons per day. 
In the summer season this is of less calorific value than in winter, 
because of the large proportion of vegetables, garden refuse, tree 
cuttings, etc. One unit operating 24 hours usually disposes of all 
the refuse. It was originally intended to heat the air used in com- 
bustion by passing it over the hot clinkers, and the plant was de- 
signed to permit of this. A short trial, however, indicated that 
little benefit was derived from this and it has been discontinued. 



DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY BRITISH DESTRUCTOR SYSTEMS. 285 

The clinkers are now carried directly to the yard, where they are 
crushed and used for the paving of roads and footpaths. 

A local paper remarks concerning the surroundings : "Trees, 
flowers and shrubs are being planted, and the place in time should 
present an attractive appearance to the eye, especially to passengers 




FIG. 88. THE MELDRUM DESTRUCTOR, PRAHRAN, AUSTRALIA. 

who travel on the Hawkburn railway line. The site of the de- 
structor is in the center of the city, surrounded by dwellings, where 
any nuisance or failure in its proper working would be a serious 
matter." 

The following report of the operation of the destructor during 
a test made in May, 1908, is furnished by Mr. Calder : 

TABLE LX. PRAHRAN REFUSE DESTRUCTOR TEST, MAY 21, 1908. 

BOILERS: 

Time of test 9:45 a.m. to 10:15 p.m. 

Duration of test 1 1% hours. 

Weather conditions, etc Fine. Wind North to Northwest. 

Number of Cells 2 

Total Grate Area 50 square feet. 

One Babcock-Wilcox Heating Surface 1,426 square feet. 



286 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

TABLE LX. (Continued.) 

REPUSB: 

Nature of Refuse House and Garden Refuse. 

Amount of Moisture contained in Refuse 42.86% 

Total Weight of Refuse delivered 21 T. 10 C. i Q. 14 Ibs. 

as fired 20 13 o 4 

" Tins, bottles, etc 17 i jo 

" Refuse destroyed per hour i 13 5 

" sq. ft. per hr 74.016 Ibs. 

WATER: 

Total weight of water evaporated 47,067.5 Ibs. 

per hour 3,765.4 " 

Water evaporated per pound of refuse 1.019 Ibs. 

from and at 

212 degrees 1.188 " 

CLINKER: 

Total weight of clinker 5 T. o C. 3 Q. 21 Ibs. 

Proportion of clinker to refuse fired 24.4% 

Total weight of ash from ashpits 9 C. o Q. 7 Ibs. 

Proportion of ash to refuse fired 2.19% 

STEAM PRESSURE: 

Steam Gauge Average 172.3 

Highest 185 

Lowest ..115 

Ashpit Draught Average (No. i) .69" (No. 2) 1.35" 

TEMPERATURE: 

Combustion Chamber Copper melted 3 times. 

Maximum (Watkin's Recorder) 2, 174 degrees. 

Before Regenerator Average , . . . 694.08 

After Regenerator 55i-5 

Hot Air Conduit 347-6 " 

Building 62 " 

Feed Water 82.1 

For the utilization of the power developed by the destructor a 
contract has been made with the Electric Lighting & Traction 
Company, which is a private corporation, and from which the 
city receives payment for the surplus electricity at a price based 
upon the present rate paid by the company for fuel for the opera- 
tion of their own works. The power developed during the day 
by the destructor is sent through the high tension main of the 
electricity works, passing through a meter for measurement. It 
is estimated that this will bring in a revenue of 600 per annum. 
The city council has ordered an additional cell for one of the 
plants, and when this is installed the working force will be reduced 
to two shifts of five men instead of six men in the twenty-four 
hours, as formerly. 

There is also a use found for the clinker, which is crushed and 
made into paving slabs to be used in municipal work. The illus- 
trations herewith show a mortar mill and crushing and grinding 
machine with screen for separating the fine dust from the 
clinker. It is expected that when all these revenues are put 
together the cost of operation of the destructor will be brought 
down to less than 20 per annum. At the present time the ex- 
penditure in working the plant amounts to about 920 per year. 



DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY BRITISH DESTRUCTOR SYSTEMS. 287 

This will be reduced to 900 when the new grate is at work, and 
the cost of maintenance greatly reduced. 

This plant is an illustration of what can be done by a modern 
destructor of the best type when operated under the care of an ex- 




FIG. 89. MORTAR MILL AND CLINKER SEPARATOR, PRAHRAN, 

AUSTRALIA. 

perienced city engineer, and from which revenue can be had not 
only through the power but also from the by-products by prac- 
tical utilization. The conditions in Prahran are very much like 
those in an ordinary northern American town, and there is every 
reason to believe that similar results can be obtained here by using 
the same methods. 

REFUSE DESTRUCTORS IN PARIS. 

The Meldrum Destructors in Paris. As previously noted Paris 
had for centuries disposed of all its refuse for agricultural pur- 
poses, but early in 1907 a contract was made for the installation 
of three destructor plants in different parts of the city, which 
should have a combined capacity of 700 tons daily. 



288 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 




FIG. 90. MELDRUM DESTRUCTORS, PARIS. 



DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY BRITISH DESTRUCTOR SYSTEMS. 289 

These destructors are of the standard Meldrum top-feed type, in 
three installations at Issy-le-Moulineaux, Romainviile and St. 
Ouen. Each plant comprises three units of four grates, making a 
total of 36 grates, or cells. Babcock & Wilcox boilers are used. 

The accompanying illustration gives an excellent idea ot the 
construction of the stations, and of the method of charging the 
destructors, by means of conveyor belts which bring the refuse to 
chutes connected with the charging holes of each destructor. 

In 1906 the total number of British destructors operating 
throughout the world was estimated at 282. Since then the in* 
crease, as shown in the preceding table, is estimated at 50, making 
the total 332. These figures are given as an indication of the 
growth of the destructor system in almost every country in the 
world. Besides the makers named there are some four or five 
other baildtrs in Germany and Italy of furnaces which follow 
very closely the lines of the British destructors. Undoubtedly 
there are many other furnace builders whose acquaintance we 
have not vet made. 



PART IV. 

THE DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY REDUCTION AND 
EXTRACTION PROCESSES. 

CHAPTER XII. 

THE PROCESSES OF REDUCTION AND EXTRACTION IN THE U. S. 

The movement for the improvement of sanitary conditions in 
American towns actively began in 1887. While there were already 
in existence many State medical associations which dealt with 
public hygiene as particular phases of epidemics were reported by 
the members, prior to this year, no general attention was paid 
to the subject of municipal sanitation as- represented by the sani- 
tary treatment of city wastes. 

The leading national societies, the American Medical Associa- 
tion, the Mississippi Valley Sanitary Society and the Association 
of American Railroad Surgeons, did not concern themselves with 
prevention of diseases that might arise from unsanitary waste 
disposal methods. The health officers of towns and cities were 
struggling with the difficulties that arose, but without the knowl- 
edge of suitable methods and apparatus for improving conditions, 
they were content to follow precedents and dispose of waste by the 
easiest available means. 

The first steps for general improvement were taken by the 
American Public Health Association, when, in 1887, at the meet- 
ing in Milwaukee, there was read a series of papers describing the 
work of certain garbage crematories in Wheeling, Des Moines, 
Milwaukee, Minneapolis and Montreal, by which city refuse of 
every kind was destroyed by fire. This led to the appointment of 
a special committee to investigate and report on the subject, and 
this committee has been continued for nearly twenty years. 
Papers published in the official reports of the association tabulated 
the progress of the work, definitely defined the constituents of 
waste, and from time to time gave statistics from many cities 

290 



THE DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY REDUCTION. 291 

and towns, advocating impartial consideration of the subject with 
a view to the improvement of sanitary conditions. These reports 
gave descriptions of methods and apparatus, and generally in- 
cluded an indication of the approximate costs. 

But in 1888-89 the subject came more prominently to the front, 
through an epidemic of yellow fever in Florida, which awakened 
widespread interest in the practical question of protection by 
quarantine, and the necessity for controlling the progress and 
finally stamping out the cause of the plague. Among the ques- 
tions pertinent to the subject was that of the disposal of city waste, 
a serious. problem in the affected communities in which there was 
no sewerage system, nor any method, except the most primitive, 
for disposing of household refuse. 

The demand for the safe and instant disposal of dangerous 
matter was met by the erection of cremating furnaces in which 
night-soil, garbage, dead animals and combustible refuse were 
destroyed. At Jacksonville, St. Augustine, Tampa, Fla., Bruns- 
wick, Savannah, Atlanta, Ga., and Birmingham, Ala., the most 
dangerous forms of waste were consumed by Engle cremators, 
which were invaluable aids in restoring confidence in the effi- 
cient administration of the Health Departments. All these installa- 
tions, with one exception, were made after the design and under 
the supervision of the author. While none were of large capacity 
and all were hastily built with the material at hand, they were all 
on the whole quite satisfactory in operation, and for temporary 
service admirably answered the purpose. The subsequent growth 
and progress of this means of waste disposal by incineration has 
been previously described. 

THE REDUCTION AND EXTRACTION METHODS FOR THE TREAT- 
MENT OF GARBAGE. 

The reports upon crematory work published by the engineering 
press and in the papers of the American Public Health Associa- 
tion gave- some idea of the composition and relative quantities of 
American city waste. It was observed that the garbage was larger 
in amount in this country than in English towns, where the work 
of disposal by fire had been carried on for several previous years. 
The reports of experiments made in European cities established 
the fact that this item of waste contained a certain proportion of 



292 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

grease or oil that was valuable for many uses, and that there re- 
mained, after this oil was extracted, a residuum that could be still 
further utilized. 

THE MERZ PROCESS OF REDUCTION. 

In 1886 the "Merz" process, first experimentally known in 
Vienna, Austria, was introduced into America by Mr. H. A. 
Fleischman, who in May of that year organized, at Buffalo, a 
company "to manufacture grease and fertilizer from city refuse." 
The contract with the city of Buffalo provided that the city should 
collect the garbage, separated from all other refuse, and deliver the 
same at the company's works. 

The statement made by Mr. Fleischman before the committee of 
the Boston City Council in March, 1893, gives a concise account 
of the first "Merz" Extraction Process. Mr. Fleischman said : 

We put up the first plant in the city of Buffalo, and I thought there 
would be a barrel of money in it; and I went before the city council and 
said, "Gentlemen, I will take your garbage for nothing. I do not want 
any compensation for it." We put up the first plant, gentlemen. Our 
company and our friends invested $55,000 and we received the garbage 
for a year and a half, and after this time we found out we had lost 
$18,000, and the people who had invested their money in the garbage busi- 
ness thought they had better buy some other stock than garbage stock. 
Finally we closed it up voluntarily. 

Now, gentlemen, if all you would know the trouble we had, the in- 
junctions that came in by the dozen : before we built a plant, anybody 
would be tired of going into the garbage business. Well, after the plant 
was closed for about a year, about five different parties came there and 
made a bid. 'The cremation parties and other parties had some scheme 
to put it on the ground and put some chemicals on it. 

Finally the people of Buffalo were satisfied and thought we had lost 
our money, and they gave us a contract for two years, $20,000 a year, 
and our stockholders were delighted. We have worked that plant for 
two years. . . . We get the common garbage from the city, and after 
two years' work, we didn't make much money we made in two years 
$5,460. 

Finally we went into another competition. The two years were out 
the city advertised again. . . . The Sanitary Committee of the City of 
Buffalo unanimously accepted my bid of $125,000 for five years. 

This second plant of the Buffalo Reduction Company was 
built at Checktowaga, outside the city limits, about six and one- 
half miles from City Hall. 



THE DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY REDUCTION. 293 

The construction and operation of the original plant cannot be 
accurately described, owing to the numerous changes that have 
been made, but the following description of the second plant, 
which information was obtained by a personal inspection of the 
works in 1892, is believed to be correct. 

The city garbage carts deliver their loads upon an upper plat- 
form where the tins and other foreign substances are recovered 
by hand. The garbage is then charged into horizontal tanks or 
digesters of about 6,000 pounds capacity. Extending through 
these digesters is a hollow shaft with projecting arms which is 
rotated by power, steam at high pressure being forced through 
the shaft and arms. These cylindrical digesters are jacketed to 
prevent the radiation of heat. The cooking process continues for 
from six to eight hours, during which the bulk of the^ garbage 
is reduced 65 per cent, by the escape of water which is allowed to 
drain from the digesters. The remaining 35 per cent, of matter is 
removed to closed steel tanks which are then flooded with naphtha. 
This fluid holding the grease or oil is then removed by presses and 
the residuum or "tankage" dried in rotary cylinders and ground 
for fertilizer. The separation of the grease and water is then 
complete, and the naphtha, with a loss of 15 per cent, to 20 per 
cent, is recovered and used again. The oil obtained by this process 
is a dense, semi-liquid brown or black mixture containing many 
impurities and a considerable percentage of naphtha. It is 
barrelled and sent to market in this crude form. The quantity, is 
about 3 per cent, of the total amount of garbage treated, equivalent 
to approximately 60 pounds per ton of garbage. 

There is required 250 horse-power of steam and the continuous 
labor of twelve or fifteen men to carry on the work. With the 
exception of a storage house and the chimney stack the con- 
struction is wholly of wood. 

In 1890 this company made several experimental attempts to 
manufacture a fertilizer from night-soil by means of a huge rotary 
drying cylinder, but the process was so offensive and expensive, 
and the results so uncertain that the attempts were abandoned. 

The company continued the work of garbage disposal up to 
September 30, 1900, when the works were almost entirely des- 
troyed by fire. Pending the reconstruction of the plant, the com- 
pany demanded and obtained a change in the contract whereby 



294 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

they received a somewhat larger amount of money, with additional 
yearly increase. 

When this contract expired, the Board of Works advertised for 
bids. . As stated by Mr. Drake, chairman of the board : 

The reduction works that had been enjoying the contract for $35,000 
per year put in a bid for $45,000 a year. There were three bids, however, 
the lowest being for $15,000, and after weeks of delay and a bitter fight, 
the contract was let to the lowest bidders. Within three days thereafter 
the highest bidder, the reduction works, came with the successful con- 
tractor and asked the board to consent to the transfer of the contract 
to the reduction works; and to-day (September, 1899) they are reducing 
the garbage for $15,000 per year, the former cost being $35,000. 

The present contract, dating from June, 1903, is with the Buffalo 
Sanitary Company, which has the contract for the collection and 
disposal oT the city garbage, refuse and ashes. The treatment of 
twenty-five thousand tons per year is performed for the sum of 
about $18,000, the reduction company receiving all the product of 
the work. This is a rate of 61.2 cents for disposal only. The 
company makes collections and delivers at the works. This con- 
tract expires in 1909, when it is probable that some other method 
which will be less expensive will be used for transportation and 
treatment. 

THE NEW MERZ PROCESS. 

When rebuilding the Buffalo works after the destruction by 
fire, many changes and alterations were made, and later on more 
improvements were introduced. 

The present Merz process as carried on at Checktowaga is thus 
described by a competent authority: 

The building contains three large ovens, in each of which are 
six revolving cylindrical dryers. These are 48 inches in diameter, 
13 feet long, inclined, and supplied with hard coal grates, 15 square 
feet in area. The heated gases pass around the dryers and are 
then drawn through them by mechanical contrivances. Outside 
the building is a cooling tank, 7 feet diameter, 10 feet high, 
furnished with a i^-inch water spray pipe and drain, and a large 
vertical discharge fan 78 inches in diameter, of 25,000 cubic feet 
capacity, speed 280 revolutions per minute. The fan is connected 
with a steel stack 80 feet high by 5% feet in diameter. The re- 



THE DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY REDUCTION. 295 

maining apparatus includes four 125 horse-power boilers, four 
grease extractors, two engines and an electrical generator. 

The garbage is dumped into a large hopper and taken by con- 
veyor to the second floor where it is ground into pieces of one 
cubic inch. It then passes through the same breeching that con- 
veys the gases to the cooling tower, into the rotary dryers where 
it remains for one hour and a quarter. During this time it slowly 
passes the length of the dryers, subjected to the heat all around the 
cylinders ; the hot gases are also returned through the dryers and 
brought into direct contact with the garbage. All animal life 
is now destroyed and a large part of the moisture driven off. 
The garbage is then conveyed to the Merz Grease Extractors and 
the grease removed by a solvent of benzine. The tankage is 
ground and stored for market and the grease separated from the 
naphtha, which is recovered with about 15 per cent. loss. These 
gases discharged in the drying process deposit a large amount of 
watery vapor in the cooling tower and are sucked into the stack, 
passing over a furnace in the bottom of the stack which destroys 
any remaining offensive odors. Although the plant has reduced 
as much as 175 tons per day, with 80 per cent, of moisture, 
equivalent to 140 tons of water, the gases discharged from the 
top of the stack were odorless and almost invisible. 

The amount of garbage handled varies from 50 tons per day in 
February to 140 tons in September. To reduce this amount of 
garbage the plant consumes about ten tons of coal per day for the 
steam boilers which furnish power to operate the plant, and for 
the heating and evaporating of the naphtha, and four tons of coal 
per day to heat the rotary dryers, also 100,000 gallons of water per 
day for steam and condensing purposes, and about 50 gallons of 
naphtha per day to replenish losses. 

This is the method at present in use, a radical departure from 
the former method of reduction by steam to pulp before applying 
the solvent, and is the result of experiments extending for a num- 
ber of years. 

It will be noted that the great difficulty in reduction methods 
has been that of drawing off the moisture contained in garbage, 
which averages nearly 85 per cent. When this is separated by 
steaming there is at one stage of the process a volume of water 
that it is almost impossible to dispose of except through sewers. 



296 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

This procedure invariably gives rise to nuisance, as the water 
contains the most offensive and most quickly putrefying elements 
of the garbage. The evaporation of the water at a temperature 
sufficiently high to vaporize it would avoid the after difficulties of 
dealing with this waste, and would deliver the residual in con- 
dition to be treated by the solvent without loss of the valuable 
volatile elements of ammonia and phosphate, which would re- 
main in the tankage after the solvent had carried out the grease. 

From the first, complaints of the operation of this plant have 
been received. During the summer of 1904 a strong effort for its 
discontinuance was made by the authorities of Checktowaga, but 
without avail, the argument of the city being that the work was one 
of necessity and that no other means of disposal was available. 

Milwaukee. The Merz process was introduced at Milwaukee, 
Wis., in 1888, a local company capitalized at $500,000 having been 
formed to take over the patents and do the work. This company 
obtained a contract for three years and erected its works in the 
city limits upon ground in the neighborhood of fertilizer factories 
at a cost of $100,000. 

The city paid $15,000 per year for disposal, collecting the 
garbage for delivery to the company. The same apparatus as that 
installed in the first Buffalo plant was used, although the quantity 
of garbage was small, being about 50 tons per day. 

Complaints of nuisance were made from the beginning and con- 
tinued for the duration of the plant's operation. The Health 
Officer, Dr. Wingate, says in one report: 

In the summer of 1891, it became evident, to the Health Department that 
the plant was being overworked, the water supply was not sufficient for 
condensing the gases properly; the building had become shaky and the 
machinery was not working properly; offensive gases were escaping and 
creating a nuisance, and not from the fault of the process, but from the 
location, construction and management of the plant, it was deemed ad- 
visable to close the plant a few months before the expiration of the 
contract. 

In June, 1892, the city contracted for five years with the Wis- 
consin Rendering Company for the disposal of garbage and dead 
animals. 

The collection was to be made by the company in steel air-tight 
tanks and conveyed without nuisance either by boat or on cars to 



THE DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY REDUCTION. 297 

the plant, which was located at Bartels, about fourteen miles out- 
side the city limits. The collections were made three times per 
week in summer and twice a week in winter from residences, and 
daily from hotels and restaurants. Dead animals were removed 
upon notification to the company. The city was to pay for collec- 
tion, transportation and disposal, the sum of $68,000 for the first 
year and a yearly increase of $2,000 per year for five years, when a 
new contract could be made or the works purchased by the city. 

The amounts in 1890 were 15,000 tons per year or about 48 tons 
per day, with 15,943 small dead animals and 660 dead horses. 
This is about $4.53 per ton for collection and disposal or approx- 
imately 26 cents per capita. At the expiration of this contract 
it was not renewed. 

Milwaukee's experience in the various methods of waste dis- 
posal covers all the stages of progress known to this country. In 
the earliest years, and until it became impracticable, the garbage 
was dumped at convenient places adjacent to the city limits. In 
1887-8 the first crematory furnace was built by Mr. Forrestal, a 
contractor. This was a crude form of the English Beehive de- 
structor, using coal as fuel and destroying a part of the garbage. 

In 1887-8, the Engle Sanitary and Construction Company, of 
Des Moines, Iowa, installed a cremator of small capacity which 
operated for a few months. This was acquired by the Merz Re- 
duction Company and was discontinued when in 1888 they obtained 
their contract for disposal by reduction. 

After the suspension of the contract with the Wisconsin Ren- 
dering Company in 1897, the city authorities went back for nearly 
two years to the old system of dumping, but in 1902, compelled 
by increasing public dissatisfaction with prevailing methods to 
effect a change, they contracted with the Engle Sanitary and 
Cremation Company for two large furnaces, each rated at 100 
tons daily capacity. These were built under the patents and the 
supervision of Robert Robinson, associated at that time with the 
Engle Company, and were placed upon an island in the river in 
an effort to avoid complaints of nuisance. The city paid $12,500 
for the right to build under the patents and the sum of $29,160 was 
appropriated for special machinery required in construction. The 
ultimate cost for the construction and equipment of the crematories 
was upward of $80,000. 



298 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

The contract provided for a maximum cost for operating, but 
the plant being under political control, a large number of un- 
necessary employees found easy berths. The fuel expense was 
large, making the cost of operation excessive. Many expensive 
repairs to the furnace were made, and these, taken with the cost 
of transportation by water, which was necessary because of the 
isolated situation of the plant, made the cost of operation consider- 
ably larger than that of any other garbage crematory in the 
United States. This plant is still operating, pending the adoption 
of other methods. 

REPORT OF MR. RUDOLPH HERING. 

In 1907 the city authorities commissioned Mr. Rudolph Hering 
to make an examination of the present conditions and to formulate 
a report upon the costs of collection of the varied classes of city 
waste and the methods by which they should be disposed of in a 
manner most sanitary and advantageous to the city. 

An excerpt from Mr. Hering's report is made as follows. 
(Condensed from the Municipal Sanitary Engineer, February 12, 
1908): 

The engineer considers at length both reduction and incinera- 
tion systems. His final conclusion is, that, since reduction works 
have invariably been offensive they should be located outside the 
city, other large places having placed these at a distance of five 
to fifteen miles from the populous districts. On the other hand, 
there have been no complaints from the present crematory, and in 
some instances similar plants have been operated in built-up sec- 
tions without serious nuisance it was, therefore, concluded that 
an incinerating plant of the best type could be placed within the 
city limits. 

During 1906 the cost of collections and disposal by the crema- 
tory was taking the year through: 

Total public collection ...................... 38,212 tons 

Total private collection ...................... 263 

Total dead animals .......................... 75 ' 

38,550 tons 



Cost of collection, per ton ................................... $i . 

Cost of disposal, per ton .................................... 1-35% 

Largest quantity September in tons ........................ 3,9^9 

Smallest quantity February in tons ........................ 2,368 



THE DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY REDUCTION. 299 

The cost of hauling per ton mile obtained from an average of 
seventeen representative districts was : 

Average distance for each collection daily 7.2 miles 

Each load averaged .796 ton 1,594 Ibs. 

Average for each collector, 2 loads per day, 3,184 Ibs., or... 1.592 tons 

On a basis of $2.50 per day, the cost of collecting per man 
employed was 22C. per ton-mile, or 1.58 for teams only. 
Mixed loads of ashes and rubbish measuring 2.5 cubic yards 

weighed 2,601 Ibs., or, per yard 1,040 Ibs. 

Dry material, 2.5 cubic yards weighed 2,425 Ibs., or, per yard.. 970 Ibs. 

Ashes alone, 2.5 yards weighed 3,025 pounds per yard 1,210 Ibs. 

Rubbish alone, 2.5 yards weighed 1,625 Ibs. per yard 650 Ibs. 

In connection with the burning of ashes mixed with garbage, 
he argues as follows : 

If coal is worth $3.75 per ton, then, as the amount of coal in domestic 
ashes can be safely taken at 20 per cent, of the whole, the fuel value of a 
ton of ashes in an incinerator which is kept at a temperature of at least 
1,200 degrees F., when all coal would be consumed, is worth 75 cents. 
If we reckon the expense of hauling at 25 cents per ton mile, it would 
pay to haul such ashes three miles. On the other hand, there is a fill value 
to ashes, but this is maintained after complete incineration. And there is 
the expense of a larger grate area for adding ashes to the incinerator, 
which must also be considered in the cost estimate. 

If rubbish is burned, then, as it has a calorific value in American cities 
of about one-fifth that of coal, and if coal is worth $3.75 a ton, we can 
value a ton of rubbish also at $0.75, and it will pay to haul it as far as 
the ashes, if it were not a sanitary requirement to destroy it by fire even 
at a greater cost. 

If garbage is burned with other refuse, separation is not customary, 
and, at first glance, seems to have no advantage. In my opinion, how- 
ever, garbage should continue to be separately collected and delivered. 
As garbage should at some seasons be collected daily, while the other 
refuse can be collected at longer intervals, there is an advantage in limiting 
the more frequent service to the single material which requires rapid 
delivery. There is also the advantage of expelling some of the free water 
of the garbage (according to Prof. Sommer, about 9 per cent), by the 
pressure of its own weight. There is also the advantage of evaporating 
an additional amount of water at the works, as done at your furnace at 
present, in a more economical manner than if garbage, rubbish and ashes 
were at once mixed. In the latter case, the water is at once absorbed and 
only slowly evaporated, perhaps not until this is done by the fuel con- 
tained in the refuse, which should be utilized rather for maintaining the 
highest practicable degree of heat in the furnace. 

Whether the collection is of garbage or of other refuse if the roads 
are good and if the collection is mainly down-hill, as in Milwaukee, it 
will be cheaper to have double teams with two men than single teams 
with one man. The tare weight of a double team wagon is not nearly 
twice that of a single team wagon, and the saving of weight can be utilized 
for an additional amount of refuse to be hauled by the same team. There 
is further economy in the fact that two men together can collect more 
rapidly than two men singly. 

It is hardly necessary to state in this city that the collection of all classes 
of refuse is better done by city employees than by contract. There may 



300 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

be exceptional conditions where this is not so, but the exclusive Custom 
in Europe and the experience of most of the best managed public works 
in our own country have amply indicated that, ordinarily, where a 
question of nuisance is concerned and where the convenience and comfort 
of the people is first considered, the contract system has, as a rule, not 
given the same degree of satisfaction as municipal operation. 

Concerning the utilization of the heat, Mr. Hering states : 

From the examinations that have been made, it is safe to guarantee a 
pound of steam per pound of refuse during the fruit season, when the 
degree of moisture in the refuse is greatest, and i*4 pounds of steam per 
pound for refuse in the winter, when the discarded coal in ashes is 
greatest. . . The practicability of utilizing the resulting heat has been 
amply demonstrated by experience in many cities. It has been used to 
operate the plant, to furnish power for pumping, for repair shops, for 
breaking and grinding clinkers, and chiefly for driving dynamos for 
electric lighting. 

He estimates the investment cost of plants as follows : 

1. Reduction of 150 tons of garbage $225,000 

Incineration of 100 tons of rubbish 89,000 

Total for 250 tons refuse $314,000 

2. Incineration of all refuse, 450 tons 3O7>ooo 

3. Incineration of 300 tons 200,000 

The operation costs, including interest and depreciation, are estimated 
as follows: 

Per Day Per Ton 

1. Reduction of 150 tons of garbage $55-oo $0.37 

Incineration of 100 tons of rubbish 37.73 -33 

Total cost for 250 tons rubbish $92-73 $O-37 

2. Incineration of all refuse, 450 tons 47-53 -H 

3. Incineration of 300 tons of refuse 79-01 .26 

From this summary it will be seen that the reduction project is the 
more expensive one. The larger of the two incineration works is cheaper 
per ton of material burned than the smaller one, due to the fact that 
practically no ashes would be hauled to the latter and therefore no value 
is derived from the heating power of the unburned coal contained therein, 
which is found to be considerable, but which could be utilized as the 
area of grate surface available at the plant would be increased. 

Preliminary to the report of Mr. Hering, an investigation was 
made by Prof. R. E. W. Sommer upon the constituents of garbage 
that brought out some facts which, though not altogether new, 
were stated in a more definite form than had been previously done. 

The method of proceeding is interesting and one that can be 
easily followed by any place which desires to obtain similar in- 
formation. 



THE DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY REDUCTION. 301 

In order to obtain an average sample the city was divided into five 
districts, according to the wealth of the population. It was ascertained 
how many team loads were collected during the same length of time (one 
month) in each of these five districts. When the teams arrived, Sep- 
tember 9, 1907, there were taken as many unit measures (garbage cans) 
of the garbage of each of the five districts as the district gave teams 
within the same time. The garbage was poured upon a sloping hard floor 
and well mixed with a spade. 

In order to determine the amount of liquid which is pressed out by 
the own weight of the garbage, a weighed quantity of the mixed garbage 
was filled into a barrel having a double perforated bottom and allowed to 
stand for twenty-four hours, and the liquid which was drained off was 
weighed. 

The larger quantity of the mixed garbage was piled up and quartered 
down, just as miners do in order to obtain an average sample of ore. 
After each quartering the garbage was comminuted with knives and 
the quartering and comminution continued until twenty-five pounds of 
garbage were obtained. The liquid pressed out by these processes ran 
down the sloping floor and was collected, measured and each time cal- 
culated in the right proportion. The remaining twenty-five pounds of 
mixed comminuted wet garbage was brought to the chemical laboratory. 
Here the quartering was continued until about two pounds were obtained. 

The approximate two pounds were accurately weighed and heated on 
a water bath for some days, until they appeared dry, and the drying 
process continued in a drying oven at 105 degrees C. until constant 
weight. The loss of weight plus the weight of the liquid (proportionately 
calculated for two pounds) which was squeezed out by the process of 
comminution gave the total amount of water. 

The dry garbage was poured in an iron mortar and gave a coarse, 
brownish-black powder, somewhat resembling ground coffee. The chem- 
ical analysis was made with this powder. 

Since one pound of dry garbage gave 4,522 B.T.U. and the 
22 pounds of dry matter in the 100 pounds of wet garbage gave 
99,484 B.T.U., it was concluded that after the 9.33 per cent of 
free water had been removed by its own pressure, garbage should 
burn itself under perfect conditions with no additional fuel. 

These examinations of the garbage constituents are exceedingly 
valuable for the general information of other communities where 
the same methods can be used and the results obtained in the same 
manner. 

Comparison of the reports of Prof. Sommer with those of Mr. 
B. F. Welton on garbage from West New Brighton, NV Y., and 



302 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 



expressing the results in equivalents of coal, will make the matter 
clearer to lay readers. 

TABLE LXI. EQUIVALENT COAL IN ONE TON OF GARBAGE, DEDUCT- 
ING FREE WATER DRAINED BY NATURAL MEANS. 









bfl 












>s^ 




c 


^ a 











||| 


Per Cent. 
Drained 


Per Cent 
Water 
Remaini 


Per Cen 

Pounds i 
Water 
Solids 


^ TJ 

PQ ^ 


.p 


|L 

11 

30 

cr 
W 


Milwaukee . 


78 


9-2 } 


68 67 


I 3 74 62 6 








New Brighton. 


73.26 


9-33 


66.43 


1,328,672 


>;>** 

4,274 


2,872,128 


* 1 1 
220 



Coal is assumed at 13.000 B. T. U. per pound. 

If we assume that 9 pounds of water to be evaporated by one 
pound coal under the best conditions, then the evaporation of 
1,328 pounds of water would require 147 pounds coal, leaving 
70 pounds for loss. This would mean an efficiency of about 
68 per cent, in the furnace necessary to do the work, which 
might be taken as the standard of efficiency required from the 
furnace when garbage alone is to be destroyed. With coal at 
$3.75 per ton, the value of this fuel would be about 46 1-2 cents 
per ton, or about 1-9 of the coal value of fuel. 

These conditions apply when separated garbage unmixed with 
other matters is dealt with. When refuse or rubbish is burned 
with garbage the conditions are far more favorable. 

Dry refuse (rubbish, as termed by the engineer) contains a 
coal equivalent of approximately 1,298 pounds coal per ton of 
refuse, and if this be added in the same proportions as are usually 
collected, and burned without sorting, the evaporation power will 
approximate 500 pounds of coal per ton of mixed garbage and 
rubbish. 

It would seem that the estimates of power to be developed are 
well within the mark, and that the combustion will be done with- 
out other fuel than the garbage and refuse of the usual collections. 

When the collections contain ashes and manure mixed with 
garbage and refuse, the evaporation is still greater. For com- 
parison with the actual work done under these conditions, ref- 
erence is made to the report from the Meldrum Destructor at 
Westmount. 



THE DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY REDUCTION. 



303 



TABLE LXII. AVERAGE DAILY QUANTITY, IN TONS, OF GARBAGE 
FROM THE WHOLE CITY OF MILWAUKEE, AND OF ASHES AND 
RUBBISH FROM WARDS 1 TO 7, INCLUSIVE, COL- 
LECTED EACH MONTH DURING THE YEAR 1906. 

The quantity of manure shown is figured to give a total daily quantity 
of refuse of 300 tons. 



MONTH 


QUANTITY 


TONS PER 24 HOURS 


Garbage 


Ashes and 
Rubbish 


Manure 


Total 


January 


95 
9 1 
no 

93 
116 
161 
156 
170 

J 53 
133 
114 

9 2 


197 
170 
170 
io5 
150 
124 

IO2 
IO4 
IO2 
114 
142 
171 


8 
39 

20 
102 

34 
15 
42 
26 
45 
53 
44 
37 


300 
300 
300 
300 
300 
300 
300 
300 
300 
300 
300 
300 


February 


March 


April 


May. . , 


T j 
June 


July 


A ' ' 

August 


September 


October 


November 


December 





NOTES: Garbage weighs 1,200 pounds per cu. yd. 

Ashes and rubbish mixed weigh about 1,040 pounds per cu. yd. 
Manure weighs 970 pounds per cu. yd. 

TABLE LXIII. PERCENTAGE OF GARBAGE, ASHES AND RUBBISH 

AND MANURE IN THE AVERAGE DAILY QUANTITY OF REFUSE 

FOR EACH MONTH AS COLLECTED IN THE YEAR 1906. 



MONTH 


Garbage 
Per Cent. 


Ashes and 
Rubbish 
Per Cent. 


Manure 
Per Cent. 


Total 
Per Cent. 


January 


JI 7 


6< 6 


2 . 7 


IOO 


February . ...... 


"*O 3, 


S6 7 


I 7, .O 


IOO 


March 


6^ -6 
7,6 .7 


D / 

e6 .7 


6.6 


IOO 


April 


"*T .O 


? ^ .0 


34 -O 


IOO 


May 


38.7 


So .0 


1 1 1 


IOO 


June 


C7 .7 


41 3 


c .0 


IOO 


Tulv 


^2 O 


74 o 


14 o 


IOO 


J ; / 

August 


<;6 7 


7,4. 7 


8.6 


IOO 


September 
October 


51.0 

44 3 


34-o 
38 .0 


15.0 

17.7 


IOO 
IOO 


November . . 


2 * 

38 .0 


47 - 3 


14 . 7 


IOO 


December 


3O . 7 


^7 .0 


12 . 7 


IOO 













The calorific value of these materials as collected may be taken 
as follows: 

Garbage (as collected) 1,500 B. T. U. per pound 

Rubbish and ashes mixed 5,000 B. T. U. 

Manure 2,000 B. T. U. " 



304 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

The preceding report made by Mr. Rudolph Hering to the City 
Council of Milwaukee was filed in January, 1907. The council 
deferred action until October, 1908, when, after due preparation, 
specifications were prepared calling for tenders for the Erection 
and Completion of a Refuse Incinerator. 

This movement for a better system of waste treatment in Mil- 
waukee is due largely to the efforts of Dr. H. A. Bading, Com- 
missioner of Health. From the date of his appointment in 1906 
he has earnestly advocated this much needed improvement which 
now seems likely to be brought to a satisfactory conclusion. 

THE CHICAGO MERZ REDUCTION PLANTS. 

The sanitary work of Chicago, 111., as connected with waste 
collection and disposal, has from the first been until within two 
years in a condition of chronic negligence and resulting con- 
stant complaint. 

Within a radius of from six to eight miles from the city were 
a series of great pits or excavations made by removing clay for 
bricks used in building the city. After the layers of clay were 
removed to a depth of from twenty to sixty feet these pits were 
filled with mixed refuse of all kinds, and have for years been the 
only means of waste disposal. The clay was used to make bricks 
to build the city, the city filled the pits with refuse and then built 
houses thereon, and the process was repeated until the hauls have 
become so long and the cost of transportation so great as to 
compel other courses. During all these years many efforts have 
been made to establish better means of disposal. The crematories 
built by Anderson, Heavey, and others, proved inadequate. A 
traveling crematory was tried and abandoned. The practical ex- 
ample of the destruction of the refuse and sewage sludge of the 
World's Fair in 1893 by the Engle crematories with entire sani- 
tary success and at a moderate cost was permitted to pass without 
notice, and even when these furnaces were offered free to the 
city, on condition of their removal and re-erection on the city's 
ground, this was declined without thanks. 

The collection service has always been by contract. Either a 
definite territory or ward has been let for a specified time at a 
given price, or the carts have been hired from contractors and the 



THE DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY REDUCTION. 305 

collections made by the city employees. In either way it is a most 
expensive, unsanitary and unsatisfactory work, a striking example, 
of the power of contractors who own their plant to compel 
the city to accept their terms for poor work. 

This whole subject has been examined and reported on, and 
recommendations for municipal service have been made by com- 
petent men trained in the work, all without avail. The influence 
of the contractor has been stronger than any consideration of 
economy, decency or sanitation. 

The Merz Reduction Process was established at Chicago 
in 1888, the first city to adopt this method after the in- 
stallation made in Buffalo. The contract was made with the 
city by a stock company organized by owners of the Merz 
patents, and a large plant was built, at a cost of $100,000, at a 
remote point near the boundary line of the city. The city was to 
pay at the rate of 50 cents per ton for all garbage treated, and to 
collect and deliver the garbage at the works. This payment was 
found to be insufficient to produce a revenue. The garbage was 
mixed with a large amount of foreign matter impossible to com- 
pletely separate at the works, while the city did not enforce the 
ordinance for separation at the houses. 

No details of the working of this plant are to be had, but it 
is known that an experiment made for a short time showed that 
under prevailing conditions the plant could not be made to pro- 
duce a revenue. The work was discontinued, and shortly after- 
wards the buildings were destroyed by fire. 

The Second Merz Plant. Up to 1906 the garbage had been 
dumped with the other forms of waste. In that year the city 
contracted for the separate treatment of this with the Chicago 
Reduction Company, a corporation formed to receive the garbage 
from the city teams at one central station and to treat it for the 
recovery of the grease and tankage. 

The garbage, separated by the householders from other sub- 
stances, is collected by the city, and taken direct to the plant from 
nearby localities, or to three shipping docks on the north and 
south branches of the Chicago River. The collections are made 
in 600 steel boxes on racks, or wagon bodies, holding four. cubic 
yards each, watertight, with sectional lifting lids, concealing two- 



306 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

thirds of the contents while loading. The boxes are lifted from 
the wagon bodies to the decks of three scows for transportation by 
water to the reduction plant. One of these scows has power, 
and serves the double purpose of a lighter and a tug for the 
others. 

The garbage collection service of the city does not include that 
from the hotels, boarding-houses, restaurants, commission and 
market houses, all of which is collected by private contractors. 
There are still about twenty-five tons of household garbage 
dumped with the ashes and refuse in remote districts. About 300 
tons are daily (except Sundays) delivered to the reduction plant. 

The plant is located at Iron and 39th streets, four and three- 
quarter miles to the southwest of the center of the city, with a 
frontage of 380 feet on the Chicago River. There is a railroad 
connection with the belt line encircling the city, and also with the 
street car lines. 

The grounds cover three and one-half acres, of which the re- 
ceiving dock occupies an area 120 by 80 feet. The buildings are 
the receiving building, milling or grinding building, boiler house, 
naphtha storage building, naphtha extra extraction building, 
dryer building, shops and office, occupying altogether 30,860 
square feet of ground, or about three-quarters of an acre. 

The boxes of garbage are discharged into concrete hoppers out- 
side the receiving house, and are then cleansed and sterilized 
and returned to the scows. 

From the hoppers bucket elevators lift the garbage to the upper 
floor of the receiving building where foreign matter is removed 
by hand picking. 

The subsequent processes of crushing, drying, extraction of 
grease in percolating tanks flooded with naphtha, separation of 
grease from the naphtha, which is recovered and returned to the 
storage tanks, and the barreling of the grease for market are suc- 
cessive steps of the work as previously described in the Buffalo 
plant. There appears to be a more thorough treatment of the 
tankage than in other plants, as this is reported to contain less 
than ten per cent, of moisture and one per cent, of grease when 
ready for sale. The grease is sold for the manufacture of cheap 
grades of soap and candles, and the tankage to jobbers for a 
filler or base in compounding fertilizers. 



THE DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY REDUCTION. 307 

The sanitary conditions of the plant are described as excellent. 
As far as possible the process is automatic. The floors are con- 
crete, well supplied with water for flushing. The day's collec- 
tion of garbage is disposed of promptly. The location of the 
works is immediately adjoining the packing house district, where 
the odors (though believed to be so disposed of at the plant as to 
be not perceptible should they escape) cannot be distinguished 
from various odors emanating from the stock yards. 

The contract with the city, which went into effect on Novem- 
ber i, 1906, for a period of five years, provides among other 
things, that the city shall have the right to purchase the plant at 
the end of that time, that the city shall deliver all garbage collected 
free of cost to the company at its plant, the delivery shall be made 
in metal boxes constructed for dumping, and that these shall be 
sterilized at the expense of the company, that the garbage shall be 
disposed of by reduction, and that the company shall receive the 
sum of $47,500 per year for five years, provided that the work be 
performed in strict compliance with the specifications of the con- 
tract. 

On the basis of 300 tons per day, the present quantity treated, 
for 300 working days the cost for disposal is 52.77 cents per ton. 

No figures are obtainable as to the costs of operating the works 
or of the percentages of grease and tankage obtained from the 
garbage. 

A serious explosion occurred in these works on May I, 1908, 
which is thus reported in the public press : 

NAPHTHA BLOWUP. 

CHICAGO, May 2. The desolate district back of the stock yards on the 
"bank of Bubbly Creek" was visited last night by an accident in which 
at least one man was killed, five seriously injured and eight reported miss- 
ing. The police believe the eight may have lost their lives in the accident. 
The cause of the disaster was the explosion of a large tank of naphtha 
in the plant of the Chicago Reduction Company, the concern which handles 
the city's garbage. 

The roof of the four-story brick and concrete building soared sky- 
ward, and the inhabitants of the sparsely settled neighborhood were terri- 
fied by a terrific flash and roar. There was a rain of burning naphtha 
which rendered "Bubbly Creek" a river of flames. Fragments of con- 
crete torn from the steel framework were precipitated for blocks around ; 
freight cars were blown from tracks, and the big plant was a blazing 



308 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

mass of ruins within a few minutes. Andrew Marcullus, 30 years old, who 
was working at the vat, is the man known to have perished. 

In 1892 and 1893 several forms of garbage crematories were 
brought out in Chicago. One of these, known as the Heavey 
crematory, operated by liquid fuel, and as far as its limited capac- 
ity went appeared to be efficient. But the cost of the petroleum for 
fuel, and the difficulties of consuming the waste owing to its 
mixed character made the operating cost excessive, and the 
crematory was abandoned after six months' trial. 

A large and elaborate construction was the Anderson incinerat- 
ing furnace. This was built on the principle of a long narrow 
brick furnace with perforated walls through which flames from a 
series of oil burners were directed upon masses of garbage placed 
upon cars and slowly carried the length of the furnace. By in- 
direct draft the smoke and gases were gathered at one end of the 
long construction, and air for the purpose of combustion admitted 
through small openings on a level with the top of the garbage 
cars. 

It was expected that the high temperature combined with the 
slow rate of progress of the cars would completely calcine the 
garbage. A special form of poker, uniting a moveable steam 
jet with a stirring implement was used to turn over the heaps of 
garbage and expose fresh surfaces to the action of the flames. 
The result of the first week's trial was the destruction of the cars 
and of the interior walls of the furnace, the garbage masses pass- 
ing through the ordeal comparatively unburned. This crema- 
tory was abandoned shortly after the first experiments. 



CHAPTER XIII. 

THE MERZ PROCESS. Continued. THE SIMONIN PROCESS. 

St. Paul. The Merz reduction process was introduced in St. 
Paul, Minn., in 1889 by an offer on the part of Mr. H. A. 
Fleischman, proprietor of the United States patents, to construct 
a plant of 60 tons daily capacity upon the flats below the town 
within the city limits. The price of the plant was to be $100,000 
and it was to be operated by the company at a cost of $15,000 
per year to the city, all by-products to be the property of the 
company. This cost was then at the rate of 83 cents a ton ; col- 
lection and delivery of the garbage to be made by the city. The 
fate of this plant is thus graphically described by a competent 
authority : 

This investment proved to be a very unfortunate speculation for stock- 
holders. The price on the fertilizer and grease product dropped so there 
was no money in shipping it and the company undertook to carry on a 
sort of rendering establishment for rendering dead animals, etc. As the 
plant was located on the flats near the river, the rendering became an 
intolerable nuisance; in fact, I lived on the bluff at least a mile and a 
half from the plant, and when they were operating it the stench was 
fearful, so the matter was brought before the Common Council, and they 
were forbidden to use it for rendering purposes. 

With the rendering cut off, I understood they were running at a loss, 
and after a while the whole thing providentially burned down and we 
have not had in St. Paul a rendering plant since. 

The methods of disposal that have obtained and are now in 
use in St. Paul are those ancient ones of feeding garbage to 
swine and tipping the ashes and refuse. 

These methods are set forth by the health officials as being 
those most sanitary, efficient and economical, and they are vigor- 
ously advocated to the exclusion of all others. 

Denver, Col In 1889 a company built a plant, called the 
Sanitary and Fertilizer Works, for the reduction of garbage, 
dead animals and other offal and converting them into com- 

309 



310 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

mercial fertilizers and to grease for soap and lubricants, under 
the Merz system. The only available account of this plant states 
that "the plant was a money-maker, but the land upon which 
it stood ultimately became so valuable, and the original owners 
had done so well in the enterprise, that on being offered a large 
profit on the realty, they disposed of it and retired from the 
business." 

This somewhat surprising statement comes from a source 
identified with several unsuccessful attempts to install reduc- 
tion processes and must be taken with a large leeway for ac- 
curacy. The facts appear to be that the plant was built under 
the same conditions as other Merz plants in Buffalo, Milwaukee, 
and Detroit ; that it duly went into operation, but continued only 
for a short time ; the works being given up, were either removed 
or destroyed. 

Had this been a successful plant with remuneration as claimed 
by the first quoted authority, the chances for its continuance must 
have been sufficiently good for its perpetuation. That it did 
not continue was owing probably to the same unfortunate com- 
bination of conditions that terminated the career of all the 
earlier plants built under this process. 

Since the demise of this plant, the city has resisted all efforts 
made for sanitary progress, and continues to feed the garbage 
to swine and dump its refuse and ashes upon unoccupied ground. 

Paterson, N. J. A modified and imperfect form of the Merz 
reduction process has been employed here for some years. In 
1894 a contract was let by the city to the Paterson Sanitary 
Company for the disposal of ashes and garbage at $34,300 per 
annum. This company erected works south of the city on the 
Passaic River, calculated to destroy 50 tons daily. The plant 
was partly destroyed by fire two years after construction, but 
it was rebuilt and the work continued on a modified scale. It 
is believed that the process of grease extraction is not carried to 
the full extent, but that a portion of the by-products are re- 
covered, the tankage being sold at low prices. The revenue of 
the company was derived from the high price paid for the work 
by the city, and not. from the value of the manufactured 
products. 



THE DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY REDUCTION. 311 

St. Louis, Mo. This city was one of the three first places 
to acquire a Merz reduction process plant. In 1889 tne c * tv 
received bids through the Department of Health for the sani- 
tary disposal of the garbage either by incineration or reduction 
to the amount of 100 tons daily. The bids for cremation were 
at the rate of $1.00, and for reduction at $1.80 per ton. The 
contract for 10 years was awarded to the St. Louis Sanitary 
Reduction Company at $1.80 per ton for disposal only. 

In 1891, the first plant was put at 22nd Street, following the 
general construction of the first Buffalo plant, and specially 
treating the dead animals as well as small amounts of garbage. 

In 1892-3, the second and largest plant was built at 28th 
Street and St. Louis Avenue, in the southern part of the city 
near the river. This was a very extensive and costly installation, 
comprising a building 250 feet long, 80 feet wide and two 
stories in height. 

The general construction and arrangement of apparatus in 
this plant was much the same as in the first Buffalo installation, 
with probably some modification of the dryers, which were of 
an improved pattern, perfected by Mr. George Wiselogel, then 
Mechanical Engineer of Construction in the employ of the 
Merz Company. 

The quantity of garbage treated at this plant has never been 
made public. In 1902, the Health Officer reported 43,000 tons 
treated from April to October seven months. In 1893, Mr. 
H. A. Fleischman stated that the company received at the rate 
of $800,000 for 10 years' contract, and that the tankage brought 
$6.80 per ton. 

The city reports give no statement of amounts, nor any except 
the most general costs for collection and disposal. This con- 
tract was terminated about November, 1904, but a temporary 
contract at somewhat lower figures was continued for two 
years, pending some action to be taken by the City Council 
upon the whole subject. 

In 1906, the Public Sanitation Committee of the Civic Im- 
provement League of St. Louis published a report upon "The 
Disposal of Municipal Waste" after an extended investigation 



312 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

covering a period of three years. The estimated quantities and 
the cost of collection and disposal were tabulated as follows : 

Amount of garbage per year 70,000 tons 

Cost of collection at $1.67 per ton (actual rate) $116,900 

Cost of disposal at $1.00 per ton (dumped rate) 70,000 

Estimated Total Amount Combined Waste 

Garbage 1 5% : 70,000 tons 

Rubbish 10% 46,660 ' 

Ashes 75% 349,95 " 



Total quantity 466,610 tons 

The report reviewed briefly the various systems in use for 
disposal elsewhere; gave some slight idea of the values of waste 
in sorting for market ; compared the systems of incineration and 
reduction, and gave a comparative cost of each as applied to 
St. Louis, showing that "by these estimates, based upon ex- 
perience of other cities, St. Louis can collect and dispose of 
her garbage by reduction and her rubbish by burning for $100,000 
less than by attempting to dispose of it collectively by the 
incineration process within the city limits." They also add, "if 
the .disposal (not the collection) can be more economically and 
efficiently done by contract, then .the franchise should provide 
for purchase of the plants whenever the city is in a position 
to assume control." 

The recommendations of this committee provide for separate 
receptacles for garbage, ashes and rubbish, the householders to 
make separation, daily collections of garbage in summer, special 
steel collection carts and receiving stations, transportation by 
steam or electric road to places of final disposal, the erection of 
a garbage plant outside the city limits, the sale of marketable 
parts of rubbish, the erection of destructors for generation of 
power for heating and lighting public buildings, and the sale 
of manure and street sweepings to farmers. 

During the latter part of the time covered by this investiga- 
tion the garbage was taken to an island in the Mississippi river 
below the city and fed to swine, the rubbish and sweepings being 
dumped into the river from special scows. The reported quan- 
tity thus dumped overboard in 1906 was 171,000 loads. The 
ashes were used for fill on low grounds. 

For some time after the report of the committee of the 



THE DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY REDUCTION. 313 

Civic League was made no action was taken by the city author- 
ities. In January, 1907, the Board of Public Improvements 
received contingent or preliminary proposals from five different 
companies. Two of these were for reduction, two for incinera- 
tion, and one for continuing the hog feeding on Chesley Island. 
All were rejected. Subsequently, in December, 1907, new adver- 
tisements appeared calling for proposals for a reduction plant, 
and provided a set of specifications under which tenders were 
to be received. Briefly, these were as follows: 

Garbage is defined as all organic matter and small dead animals, and 
all other refuse of vegetable or animal foodstuffs, collected by the city 
garbage collection wagons, and may contain some foreign substance. 

The collection made by the city wagons is to be delivered at 
the loading stations. These stations must be within defined local- 
ities, must each have a capacity of 300 tons a day, to be fire- 
proof and be kept in a strictly sanitary condition, with suitable 
approaches, unloading platforms and roadways. The garbage 
of each day to be removed before midnight by the contractor 
and in such a manner that it will not give offensive odors. 

The reduction plant shall be located not less than one mile 
outside the city limits, upon property comprising five acres of 
ground, upon one of the railroads, or above the flood limit if 
on a river. The buildings must be of fire-proof construction, 
the plant to be fully completed within twelve months of con- 
tract, and to have a capacity of 400 tons per day. 

Hydro-carbon solvents shall not be used in the process of reduction of 
said garbage matter, and no process shall be used that is not continuous 
and does not confine the garbage from exposure to the air from the time 
the garbage is placed in the conveyor until it is completely and finally 
reduced. Nor shall the products nor the process of handling or dispos- 
ing of this garbage be productive of offensive odors. 

A penalty of $10 per ton is to be assessed against the con- 
tractor for each and every ton of garbage tendered by the city 
or its agents which he does not accept or treat as provided for 
by the contract. Ten thousand dollars is to be deposited and 
maintained, from which sum the penalties are to be paid. The 
term of this contract is for ten years, the work to begin within 
one year after approval of bond and contract by the Council. 

The contract was awarded to the Sf. Louis Standard Reduc- 



314 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

tion Company in February, 1908, at the price of 27 cents per 
ton. This company includes capitalists who own or control the 
Flynn process of reduction used in Pittsburg, and are now 
reported as trying to secure ground, but find difficulty in secur- 
ing a desirable location owing to the usual opposition to such 
plants. 

In commenting upon these specifications, one leading engineer- 
ing journal makes these pertinent observations: 

It may be said that, since the city is possibly to purchase this plant, 
it is perfectly proper that it should specify beforehand any of its essen- 
tial features which it may desire to. But the exclusion of hydro-carbon 
solvents and the provision for continuous treatment would exclude bids 
from certain companies. Even though those having this matter in charge 
may, from their investigations have concluded the processes which they 
have excluded possess undesirable features, such information could be 
used as well after bids were received as before, and it cannot be cer- 
tainly known beforehand that these clauses might not exclude other 
processes, unknown at present to the authorities, which might other- 
wise have met with their approval. We believe the better plan in all 
such applications is to carefully define the results to be obtained in this 
case presumably disposal without creating a nuisance and then use such 
knowledge and judgment as is available in determining which of the 
various propositions is most likely to meet these requirements. 

It will be interesting to note the working out of the specifica- 
tions, especially in the point of allowing foreign matters to be 
gathered with the garbage, and requiring the contractor, under 
penalty, to accept the collected load from the city. This is one 
of the chief points of difficulty in reduction work, only to be 
overcome by strict ordinance, defining the possible admixture 
of foreign substances within certain proportions and by the aid 
of the police and the courts, enforcing this. 

Unless the proportions are settled at first, there is no standard 
fixed, and it will be hard for the collector to judge what he 
shall admit and what reject, and worse for the contractor, for he 
cannot afford to haul to the works and sort out the worthless 
matter for 27 cents per ton. 

Columbus, Ohio. A reduction plant employing the Merz 
process was installed in Columbus, Ohio, in 1896. The ten- 
year contract given by the city to the Columbus Sanitary 
Company was for the collection and disposal of garbage and 



THE DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY REDUCTION. 315 

dead animals at the price of $15,800 per year. In 1904, the 
amount of garbage collected and treated was 16,221 tons, the 
cost to the company being reported as $20,000. Assuming a 
population of 160,000 the cost of collection and disposal is less 
than 10 cents per capita, much lower than in other cities of 
the same size. 

Before the expiration of the contract, the Columbus Sanitary 
Company found itself in difficulties, as the payments from the 
city and the revenue from by-products did not afford a profit, 
but, on the contrary, the operation of the plant is reported to 
have resulted in a yearly deficit of $5,000. 

While no accurate description of the works is available, they 
are believed to have been similar in construction and operation 
to those of the early Merz methods in Buffalo and St. Louis. 
The conditions early in 1906 are thus described: 

The company collects the garbage in iron wagon bodies, and hauls 
it to a loading switch on the T. & O. R. R. at West Mound Street, where 
the iron tanks containing the garbage are removed from the wagons 
and loaded on flat cars. Each morning these are hauled to the works of 
the Sanitary Company, located on the west bank of Alum Creek, four 
and a half miles southeast of the Capitol. Dead animals are hauled in 
wagons to the works. There is no thorough collection made at present, 
as any increase over present quantities would mean a net loss to the 
company. This condition of affairs is unsatisfactory. The collections are 
irregular, the intervals between them long, the routes are not well-defined, 
and the householders are forced to employ private scavengers to remove 
the garbage. No attempt is made to collect from restaurants and hotels. 
Commission houses, tradesmen, etc., haul and dump their own waste, aside 
from that which is thrown carelessly into the streets and alleys. The 
city collects the waste from the public markets. 

The conditions at the reduction works have given cause for complaint, 
partly through odors emanating from the digestors and the tankage, but 
mainly from the pollution of Alum Creek, into which greasy water is 
discharged. Owing to the breakdown of the drier it has been impossible 
to dry the tankage and make it suitable for shipment to fertilizer works, 
and during the last season it has been allowed to accumulate in a large 
pile just south of the works. Aside from its unsightliness, this accumula- 
tion of the tankage cannot be said to be a nuisance. 

In 1905, Mr. Rudolph Hering made a survey of the conditions 
in Columbus and submitted a short report advising the collec- 
tion of garbage and rubbish and its disposal at a general station 



316 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

by cremation. The estimated cost of a garbage and rubbish 
crematory and building was $100,000 to $125,000. No system 
for the collection or treatment of ashes was suggested, except 
that they be used for rilling. The output of ashes in Columbus 
is relatively small because of the use of natural gas. Subse- 
quently, in January, 1906, Mr. J. H. Gregory, Assistant Chief 
Engineer of the Board of Public Service Works of Columbus, 
reported in detail upon the methods in use, the quantities of 
waste, the approximate cost to the householders for imperfect 
scavenger service, together with detailed engineering estimates 
for providing the city with a complete plant for the collection and 
disposal of each class of refuse. 

The following excerpts from a synopsis of Mr. Gregory's 
report are taken from the Engineering News of March 15, 1906, 
Vol. LV: 

The chief points included in his recommendations are that the city col- 
lect the garbage, rubbish and dead animals by its own employees and 
equipment; that it build a crematory for disposal of collected material; 
that the collection of night-soil be continued by scavengers, to be disposed 
of in connection with the new sewage works; that street sweepings be 
continued to be dumped on low ground ; that municipal collection and dis- 
posal of ashes be postponed, and that municipal collection and disposal of 
stable refuse is neither desirable nor warranted. 

TABLE LXIV. COLLECTION STATISTICS, COLUMBUS, O. 

The populations and the tonnage of various wastes, both estimated, for 
1905 and for future years are given as follows: 

Periods !9 5 J 97 1910 ^9 1 5 1920 

Population..... 160,000 176,000 202,000 254,000 326,000 

Ashes. .. (tons). 64,000 70400 80,000 101,000 128,000 

Garbage. 17,600 19,400 22,200 27,900 35,200 

Rubbish. " 8,000 8,800 10,100 12,700 16,000 

Manure. . " 45.000 47,000 50,000 55,000 60,000 

Night-soil 3,900 4,500 5,000 5,600 6,000 

Carcasses 350 380 420 470 500 

Mr. Gregory's estimate of the cost of construction is based upon per- 
manent fireproof plants to include crematories having a capacity of 175 
tons per day of twenty-four hours, with chimney and building to con- 
tain a plant of 250 tons capacity, together with all the necessary equip- 
ment for the collection of garbage and refuse, and a building for the dis- 
posal of night-soil, including all expense for operation, maintenance and 
fixed charges. These items may be thus condensed: 



THE DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY REDUCTION. 317 

TABLE LXV. SUMMARIZED ESTIMATES OF CONSTRUCTION AND 
OPERATING EXPENSES. 

CONSTRUCTION 

First Cost: 

For collection of garbage and rubbish $116,050 

For disposal of garbage and rubbish 168,300 

For disposal of night soil 5, 500 

Total $289,850 

OPERATING EXPENSES. 1907 
Fixed Charges : 

Collection of garbage and rubbish : 

Interest ; $4,642 

Sinking fund '. 3,897 

8,539 
Disposal of garbage and rubbish: 

Interest $6,732 

Sinking fund 5,652 

12,384 
Disposal of night soil: 

Interest $220 

Sinking fund 185 



405 

Total interest $11,594 

Total sinking fund 9,734 



Total fixed charges $21,328 $21,328 

Maintenance and Operation: 

Collection of garbage and rubbish '. . $53,720 

Disposal of garbage and rubbish 32,020 

Disposal of night-soil 1,200 

86,940 

Total cost, collection of garbage and rubbish $62,259 

Total cost, disposal of garbage and rubbish 44,404 

Total cost, disposal of night-soil 1,605 



Total operating expenses $108,268 $108,268 

Operating Expenses Per Capita for Collection and Disposal of Garbage 
and Rubbish and Disposal of Night-Soil in 1907. 

Maintenance 
Fixed and 

Charges Operation Total 

Collection of garbage and rubbish $o .049 $0.305 $o .354 

Disposal of garbage and rubbish "o .070 o . 182 o .252 



Total $0.119. $0.487 $0.606 

Disposal of night-soil o .002 o .007 o .009 

Grand total $0.121 $o . 494 $0.615 

Operating Expenses Per Ton for Collection and Disposal of Garbage 
and Rubbish in 1907. 



318 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

Maintenance 
Fixed and 

Charges Operation Total 

Collection of garbage and rubbish. $o .303 $i .905 $2 .208 

Disposal of garbage and rubbish o .439 i . 135 i . 574 

Total $0.743 $3.040 $3.782 

Operating Expenses Per Cubic Foot for Disposal of Night-Soil in 1907. 

Maintenance 
Fixed and 

Charges Operation Total 
Disposal of night-soil $0.0032 $0.0093 $0.0125 

Cremation, in theory and practice, is discussed at some length in the 
report. The absence of coal ashes at Columbus, as in other cities in the 
natural gas district, gives the refuse a distinctive character. The garbage 
and dead animals in the refuse delivered to a crematory in Columbus would 
be from 65 to 70 per cent, of the total, instead of 8 per cent., as in Eng- 
land, and 

70 to 75 per cent, of the garbage will be water, and the calorific value of 
the remainder will be so low that the garbage cannot be consumed without 
previous drying or the addition of fuel. 

Then follow other data to show how different is the material brought to 
English furnaces from that td be expected in Columbus, after which Mr. 
Gregory says : 

The calorific value of the combined refuse, garbage, dead animals and 
rubbish of which a crematory in Columbus must dispose will not average 
above 2,000 B.T.U. per pound of refuse, and the total amount of water, 
the free water and that liberated by the breaking up of the carbon- 
hydrates, etc., will amount to about 0.8 Ib. per pound of refuse. The pro- 
portion of water will run much higher than this in the summer months, 
and the calorific value will be correspondingly reduced. In burning this 
low class of fuel a larger percentage of excess of air will be required 
than with a good fuel, and it is probable that more than 100 per cent, 
excess of air will be required rather than less with 100 per cent, excess 
of air, with perfect combustion and with no allowance for losses by 
radiation, etc., the maximum furnace temperature possible is 1,100 degrees 
F. By extracting 25 per cent, of the water before burning, the theoretical 
temperature would be increased to 1,450 degrees F., which is still much 
below that temperature to which it is desirable to heat the gases to prevent 
any possible emanation of noxious fumes. 

I am firmly, therefore, of the opinion that additional fuel must be 
burned in order to reach the desired furnace temperatures, providing that 
the garbage is not previously dried out by the waste heat from the furnace 
gases, the expense of which treatment might be greater than the cost of 
additional fuel. 

The evaporative power of English town refuse is quoted (from Dawson) 
as from 2 pounds of water evaporated from a 212 degrees F. per pound of 
refuse fuel, for "screened ash pit refuse," to i pound and even 0.75 pound 
inferior "unscreened ash pit refuse." These are not the net evaporative 



THE DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY REDUCTION. 319 

efficiencies available for power production in English furnaces, since from 
the figures given must be deducted about 0.125 pound of steam for forced 
draft. In the New York furnaces for rubbish, only, evaporation on test, 
with fan blast, did not exceed i l / 2 pounds of water to i pound of refuse. 

At Columbus, even after adding to the refuse the fuel which it appears 
will be necessary to get a sufficiently high temperature for combustion of 
the refuse, Mr. Gregory thinks "it is unlikely that an evaporation of more 
than 0.5 pound of steam per pound of refuse can be obtained." 

In reviewing and approving Mr. Gregory's report, Mr. Hering stated 
that in designing garbage furnaces for Columbus provision should be 
made for operation with and without drying the garbage preliminary to 
burning, thus making it possible to defer the decision whether fuel should 
be used to dry the garbage or to burn it. Likewise the decision as to 
heat utilization, beyond that for works purposes, may be postponed. Heat 
utilization, if practiced at Columbus, would be "but a secondary considera- 
tion," and could not be expected "to reduce the expense otherwise neces- 
sary for burning garbage." 

A separate collection of garbage and rubbish at Columbus is advisable, 
because if dumped in the same wagon the rubbish would absorb much 
water which might be drained off from the garbage alone, before putting 
the latter on the fires. Moreover, different types of carts can be used ad- 
vantageously for garbage and for rubbish, and the latter need not be 
collected so often as the former. It is possible, also, that refuse sorting 
may prove advisable at Columbus, if refuse and garbage are collected 
separately. 

As to the apparently high cost of garbage and refuse disposal at Co- 
lumbus, shown by the estimates, it must be remembered that much of the 
similar work elsewhere is imperfectly done and is generally less compre- 
hensive there, and that the data and estimates for Columbus are unusually 
complete. 

Mr. Hering suggests that the city prepare a design for furnaces, "in 
accordance with the best knowledge and practice," and that in view of the 
large and successful experience of European cities with the burning of 
city refuse both American and the more prominent English firms building 
such furnaces be given an opportunity to submit designs and bids, "as 
well as bids to supervise the operation for one year, guaranteeing the 
results to be obtained thereby." In view of the unsuccessful results ob- 
tained with many American furnaces heretofore, the need for great care 
in the Columbus designs is apparent. It will also be necessary to employ 
a high grade of operators when the furnaces are put in use. 

In examining this report it would seem that the estimates 
for specified capacity of the crematory and the enclosing build- 
ings are needlessly large. 

The actual quantities estimated for 1907, the first year when 
the plant would be available, are 19,200 tons of garbage and 



320 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

8,000 tons of refuse, or about 85 tons to be burned in a furnace 
of 175 tons capacity enclosed in a building of 250 tons capacity. 
Undoubtedly the quantities would increase considerably, but the 
maximum would only be reached after fifteen years, and, in 
the meanwhile, the maintenance and capital charges compound- 
ing each year are a heavy tax to pay upon unused equipment. 

The charges for engineering service also appear to be very 
great, considering that the plant is charged with superintendence 
supposed to be sufficient for carrying on the work successfully. 

The calculation as to the calorific value of waste and the 
resultant steam power to be had is too low. At that time 
(Jan., 1907) there was no plant in the country of the English 
destructor type, as the Westmount Destructor did not begin 
work until May, 1907, so that there was no standard for meas- 
urement for American Engineers except the reports and opinions 
of British Engineers, and the deductions to be made from these 
for American work on similar lines. 

Since then the four destructor plants operating under Amer- 
ican conditions have proved that not only no fuel is needed, but 
that the evaporation of water instead of being .05 Ibs. is nearly 
1.33 Ibs. of steam per pound of refuse destroyed. 

The New York test of burning rubbish only in incinerators 
'is hardly comparable with destructor work when the design 
and construction of the New York incinerators are taken into 
account. 

Mr. Gregory's reference to the recently completed reduction 
plant at Toledo, which was found to be "conducted with re- 
markable freedom from any objectionable features," is not par- 
ticularly fortunate, as these works were closed in July, 1907, 
for reasons of nuisance and inability to do the work in a 
manner satisfactory either to its stockholders or to the city 
authorities. 

The marketable values of rubbish were not considered, as all 
of the combustible matter was to be burned. The estimated 
quantity of 8,000 tons per year seems to be too small. In any 
place where natural gas is used in the households the light 
refuse is greater in amount than in other places where coal is 
the usual fuel, ard, therefore, the quantity in Columbus would 
appear to be greater than the amount given. The value of at 



THE DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY REDUCTION. 321 

least 60 per cent of this refuse which can be recovered for sale 
without serious objections, would, if saved, give a return in 
cash nearly equal to half the cost of operating the plant. 

As Columbus was the first city of the United States to under- 
take a thorough examination of conditions and to report upon 
an engineering basis with the assistance of skilled experts, it is 
interesting to note the concluding and expected results. 

This report was submitted early in 1906, and on December 6, 
1906, was approved by the Board of Public Service. Shortly 
after, this Board was retired from office for adequate reasons, 
and a new Board was installed. A resolution was offered pro- 
viding for action by the Common Council to advertise for bids 
for the plant, but this resolution was not passed. Opposition was 
made to the plans and estimates on the ground that no oppor- 
tunity was offered for tenders for any' means other than crema- 
tion. Later, in January, 1908, the city advertised for bids for 
the disposal of garbage by reduction methods only, but received 
none that were acceptable. 

In May, 1908, revised forms of specifications for tenders for 
reduction works were again issued by the city calling for bids 
on June 24th. 

These specifications are written with the advantage of the 
knowledge gained in noting the operation of the present reduc- 
tion plant and the experience acquired in the two previous un- 
successful efforts to obtain bids. Briefly stated, they contained 
the following details: 

The contractor is to design, construct and deliver complete reduction 
works, which will dispose of garbage and dead animals, with the emis- 
sion of no offensive odors or gases, or other obnoxious wastes, solid or 
liquid, except those which are inseparable from the handling of raw 
garbage or dead animals, and from the finished products of reduction 
under the best and more favorable methods now employed, and without 
the pollution of the Scioto River. 

The prices are to be stated separately for material and for 
labor, and the total (this is a requirement of the State law). 
The bidder must specify the amount of labor and the quantity 
of coal used to reduce one ton of garbage and animals. He 
must give a list of operating reduction plants similar to the 
one proposed, with capacity of works, amount of garbage yearly 



322 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

disposed of, and reasons for discontinuance of plant, if not 
now at work. A bond in the sum of fifty per cent, of the 
amount of the contract will be required for faithful perform- 
ance of contract. 

The specifications provide in detail for the plans for design 
and construction of the buildings, the capacity to be one hun- 
dred tons in twenty-four hours, with provision for increase to 
one hundred and fifty tons, the machinery and equipment to be 
in units of suitable size to permit economical operation with 
small amount of material, and to provide for repairs. All gases 
are to be discharged through furnaces and all tank water evap- 
orated. Provision is made for storage of grease and tankage 
to avoid spontaneous combustion, naphtha to be stored in steel 
tanks placed not less than one hundred feet from the buildings. 
There must be suitable means for separation of tins, bottles, 
etc., and for sterilization by steam of rooms for receiving and 
storing the garbage. 

The waste is to be handled by machinery ; the power obtained 
from generators driven by the steam from the boiler of the 
plant; all work is to be done, where practicable, by this same 
electrical power. The buildings are technically specified in every 
part of construction at great length and detail. 

The test shall be a trial of sixty days by the contractor at 
periods to be fixed by the Engineer of the city to determine 
the capacity and efficiency of the works. 

To determine the fulfillment of labor and fuel quantities, the 
works are to be operated four weeks continuously, during which 
time accurate measurements of quantities and conditions of gar- 
bage, the hours of labor on all classes of the work, the weight 
of coal and all the factors for making up the cost of operation 
per man-hour, and for fuel, are to be noted. 

The total number of man-hours of labor and the total weight of coal 
shall be divided by the total number of tons of garbage and dead animals 
treated, to find the man-hours of labor and the weight of coal, respec- 
ively, required for the reduction of one ton of garbage and dead animals. 

If the results of this test fail to fulfill the requirements of 
the contract a penalty is provided of $1,000 for each one-tenth 
(o.i) man-hour ton by which the cost shall exceed the guar- 
antee, and $50 for each pound of coal per ton by which the 



THE DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY REDUCTION. 323 

guaranteed amount is exceeded, provided that for a maximum 
of two man-hours per ton, or two hundred pounds of coal per 
ton in excess of the contract requirements, the works will be 
rejected. 

These specifications are the most comprehensive, exact and 
stringent that have yet been drawn up for reduction work. If 
a contract had been secured, it might have determined many 
questions of capacity, quantities, values and costs that now are 
not accurately known. 

There was no award of contract on the bids received under 
these specifications. The city is now preparing specifications for 
its own reduction plant to be built by arrangements with the 
companies or persons controlling the designs and apparatus to 
be employed. 

THE SIMONIN PROCESS OF EXTRACTION. 

Providence, R. I. The Simonin process for the disposal of 
garbage was first presented by I. M. Simonin, of Philadelphia, 
Pa., who had large works for the manufacture of fertilizer in 
that city. In 1888, active work connected with the reduction 
process was begun by Mr. I. M. Simonin, who, in 1890, built his 
first extraction plant in Providence, R. I. The works were 
placed on ground in the southern part of the town, near the rail- 
way, and conveniently located for short transportation of 
garbage. 

The buildings were of wood, and the operating power was 
generated by two loo-horsepower boilers separated from the 
main works. The garbage collected by a city contractor was 
received upon a concrete floor, where the cans and rubbish were 
removed and the water permitted to escape by sewer to the 
river near by. The garbage was then placed in shallow iron 
pans and these in successive tiers in wire baskets which were 
run upon trucks into a horizontal cylinder 18 feet long and 6 
feet diameter, and sealed. The cylinder was then charged 
with naphtha and left for some hours, or until the solvent had 
penetrated to every part of the garbage. The naphtha was then 
vaporized by steam introduced in coils of pipe and carried with 
part of the water to a condenser where separation was made 



324 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

and the naphtha recovered. The grease and water was drawn 
off at the bottom of the extractor and separated by settling tanks. 
In the operation of the Simonin reduction system this process 
is repeated with successive charges of garbage, until the naphtha 
becomes surcharged and concentrated. It is then forced into the 
settling tanks and again recovered for use. After the extraction 
process is completed the tankage is steamed until all trace of 
naphtha is removed, and it is then carried to another building 
where it is ground and screened. 

For one charge the duration of the process is about four 
hours and a half for extraction and four hours for steaming, 
which, added to the time consumed by the settling and prepara- 
tion of tankage, occupies from 32 to 36 hours. 

The works comprised two steam boilers, six extractors, two 
settling tanks, two stills, and a small separated building for 
naphtha. The tankage shows five to fifteen per cent, of bone 
phosphate, three to six per cent, of ammonia, and one per cent, 
of phosphate. It was very dry and found a ready sale. 

The actual cost for operating this plant were estimated to be 
equivalent to 15% cents per capita per annum of the population 
of the city, and this amount has since been assumed as the cost 
of disposal, and continued to subsequent contractors. 

The Providence works were built and operated by a company 
comprised of local capitalists. Their operation continued for 
about three years. Nothing was paid by the city for the dis- 
posal of this garbage but the collection was made at the cities 
expense by contractors. During this time many complaints of 
nuisance were received and in 1893 tne removal of the works 
was judged necessary. No reports in regard to the financial 
standing of the company are obtainable, and there are no reliable 
records of the quantities and values of the grease and tankage. 

The Simonin process is one of extraction of the grease by 
powerful solvents, with no preliminary process of maceration or 
steaming to break down the fiber of the animal and vegetable 
matter. Thus the method requires a longer time for each step, 
and a large quantity of solvent, all of which renders the work 
costly. Necessarily a large volume of gaseous products accom- 
pany each stage of the process, requiring special care to prevent 
explosions and resultant disasters. The products of grease and 



THE DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY REDUCTION. 325 

tankage retain a considerable percentage of naphtha, which dim- 
inishes their marketable value. 

In 1894, the city of Providence returned to its former method 
of garbage disposal. A contract was yearly made with local 
parties who provide garbage wagons of approved type, and make 
daily collections for a part of the city, bi-weekly and tri-weekly 
collections for the remainder. The garbage is carried outside 
of city limits and fed to swine. The argument in favor of feed- 
ing to swine is ably stated by one of the foremost sanitarians 
of New England. 

(Dr. C. H. Chapin, Providence, R. L, Proceedings A. P. H. 
Association, Vol. XXVIII, 1902:) 

For ten years or more the removal (at Providence) was in open 
dump carts a method which caused much nuisance along the road. 
Nearly one-half of the quantity was sold to farmers at 25 cents per cubic 
yard and transferred to their wagons in the city, a practice which was 
very objectionable, and afterwards stopped. The collections are now 
made in water-tight wagons, kept covered in transit and unloaded only 
at the place of feeding. On the large farm where most of the garbage 
of Providence is fed to swine, the land is divided into woodland and 
open, where the swine roam at will, having plenty of room. The garbage 
is scattered about on the ground, and is consumed so quickly and thor- 
oughly that very little odor arises, and as the feeding grounds are away 
from roads or dwellings, little nuisance results. 

In considering garbage disposal (as distinct from its collection), it is 
seen that for the last fifty years it has never cost the city a cent, but, 
instead, has at times been a considerable factor in lessening the cost to 
the city of the collection. 

The cost to the city for collection and removal for the past thirteen 
years has been 15^ cents per capita per annum, which, I am sure, does 
little if any more than pay the contractor for collecting. 

(Quotations of collection costs per capita per annum in twelve 
New England towns, prior to 1889, are as follows: Boston, 20 
cents ; Cambridge, 29 cents ; Brockton, 19 cents ; Lynn, 19 cents ; 
Fitchburg, 9 cents; Haverhill, 7 cents; Portland, 10 cents; 
Holyoke, 2 cents; New Haven, 5 cents; Lawrence, 10 cents; 
Somerville, 25 cents; Worcester, 15 cents. This cost was (in 
1901) reduced by the sale of garbage fed pork in Worcester to 
4 cents, and Brockton to 8 cents. In Lynn, Lowell, Brockton, 
Somerville, Cambridge, Springfield, a considerable revenue is 



326 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

derived from the sale of garbage, and formerly this was the case 
in Boston.) 

There is no doubt that the value of the grease and fertilizer ingre- 
dients of garbage is from two to three dollars per ton, but, unfortunately, 
no one has yet found an economical way to reduce it. The food value of 
garbage is probably much less, but this value can be utilized. Garbage 
can be fed to swine at a profit, and thus the net cost of its collection can 
be much reduced. Health Officers and Engineers have, almost without 
exception, opposed this, the only method by which garbage can be disposed 
of without cost. 

The general public is also, to a considerable extent, prejudiced against 
feeding garbage to swine, and the writer formerly shared this prejudice, 
but has been led to modify his views. 

The objections to feeding garbage to swine are made upon 
two grounds. 

First It creates a nuisance. It is indeed true that this practice does, 
as a rule, create a nuisance; but so does every other method of garbage 
disposal. The writer has seen crematories and reduction works which 
were every bit as bad as any hog farm. The only difference is that the 
reduction works cost money, while the hog farm yields a profit. 

The writer then quotes instances of nuisance caused by the 
first reduction plant in Boston, and the crematories in Trenton, 
N. J., and Montreal, Canada, and continues : 

There can be no doubt that there are many cities near which there is 
land available for raising swine, and where the business can be done with 
very little or no nuisance and with profit. 

If attention be given to transportation and feeding, and the best methods 
are employed, this can be done. Slipshod methods will result in nuisance 
and failure. Of course, very many cities are so situated that feeding to 
swine cannot be done, and other and more expensive methods must be 
adopted. 

Second It is claimed that the feeding of swine with garbage is danger- 
ous to health. It is said that the pork is likely to be diseased, and the 
disease be transmitted to human beings. Practically the only disease likely 
to be transmitted is trichinosis, but this is a rare disease, and can be 
avoided by avoiding raw pork. * * * Considering the rarity of this 
disease and the ease with which it may be avoided, this supposed danger 
does not deserve further consideration. 

The pork is said to be of poor quality and to bring a low price in the 
market. As a matter of fact, garbage-fed pork is not as hard as corn- 
fed pork, and often brings a little less in Eastern markets. But no evi- 
dence has ever been adduced to show that this pork is in any way un- 
wholesome. It is not unlikely that by better methods of feeding, perhaps 



THE DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY REDUCTION. 327 

by cooking the garbage and skimming the grease, or by getting fresher 
garbage by daily collections, the pork might be much improved. 

Probably the chief reason that the feeding of garbage to swine is ob- 
jected to is that the filth theory of disease continues to exert so much in- 
fluence. We have been so long told that filth and foul odors are the cause 
of sickness that it seems to be very hard for the public, and even alleged 
sanitarians, to give up the idea. Because garbage smells bad and hog 
pens smell bad, they are supposed to be unwholesome. This is pure fic- 
tion. There is no reason whatever to suppose that sickness ever comes 
from such causes. It makes no difference to the health of the town how 
its garbage is disposed of or how it is collected, or, in fact, whether it 
is collected at all. It is not a question of health, but one of comfort. 
Garbage removal work is not for the Department of Health, but for the 
Department of Public Works. What is needed is the advise of engineers, 
not of medical men. Garbage should be collected with the least public 
nuisance, and disposed of with the least possible nuisance. But it should 
be done with some regard for economy. It would, in Providence, cost 
many thousands of dollars more each year to dispose of garbage in any 
other way than by feeding to swine, and there is no reason to believe the 
method would be any more satisfactory to the citizens, and would certainly 
have no effect upon the public health. 

These arguments for the disposal of municipal garbage by 
feeding to swine have been given at length because of their in- 
fluence upon this subject from the standpoint of economy as 
against the more vital question of sanitation. 

There are probably very few sanitarians who would agree to 
the proposition, that the presence of filth and the odors from 
decaying animal and vegetable matters make no difference with 
the health of a community, and there are still fewer persons who 
would accept the dictum that it makes no particular difference 
to health conditions if garbage is ever collected at all. 

That it is a question of individual comfort is indisputable, 
and as health depends very largely upon agreeable and salubrious 
surroundings, personal comfort becomes a large factor of this 
equation, and this of itself is one of the strongest elements for 
a treatment that should induce a more comfortable and hence 
a more healthful state in the community. 

Hog feeding by contract or by municipal agency may not be 
more offensive than a poorly designed and operated reduction or 
cremation system, but unless it can be made better than the other 
means, it has no right to continue even though it be at less cost. 

Things that do not go forward in sanitary movements are 



328 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

things that are left behind, and while swine feeding may be a 
temporary measure for economy's sake, it cannot be held to be 
inoffensive, healthful or comfortable for the people. Nor should 
it become a permanent continuous occupation of any American 
municipality. 

Sentimental Opposition. There is one objection frequently 
encountered by those who deal with the garbage disposal prob- 
lem, and which may be called "sentimental opposition." It is a 
stumbling block in the path of progress invariably placed by 
those who are ignorant of facts, and who oppose everything con- 
nected with the disposal of waste, on general principles. Their 
attitude is thus described by one who has had a long and stenu- 
ous experience as Health Commissioner in a large city: 

' It is my opinion that there are one or two disposal systems that are all 
that is claimed for them. But I would earnestly advise that while you 
may claim for them everything in sight, if you are thinking of locating one 
in your respective location just go a little way out of town with it. 
Why is this? My experience has taught me that the nomenclature is 
wrong. You attach the word "garbage" to a brand new, empty, covered 
wagon, allow it to stand in a street in a thickly populated district, and I 
firmly believe that in a very short time a large percentage of that adja- 
cent population would be under medical treatment or threatened with some 
dreadful pestilential disease* the air would be full of petitions to the 
Health Department, injunctions, threats, etc. This is not overdrawn, for 
I have witnessed just such a performance as I have described. So, until 
the names can be changed, dispose of your garbage and refuse material 
on the outside. 

-Cincinnati, Ohio. This city has contributed but little toward 
the solution of the problem of general waste disposal, but in 
dealing with the garbage, their experience has been not unlike 
others where the early and experimental methods have failed 
and been succeeded later by more successful ones. 

From the first the organic waste was thrown into the Ohio 
River, as is still done with the sewage, but in 1872 a contract 
was made by which the garbage and dead animals were taken on 
boats three miles below the city limits. This defined garbage as 
"vegetable garbage" or kitchen offals unmixed with ashes, and 
"animal garbage" as soap grease, slaughter house offal and dead 
animals. The contractor paid householders for the soap grease, 
and for the carcasses of animals, according to the then market 



THE DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY REDUCTION. 329 

prices for live stock. The price paid was $15,000 per year and 
included the collection. 

* 

This contract was renewed after ten years, with the Cincin- 
nati Desiccating Company, but the price paid was $2,500 per 
year, not including collection. During this period much of the 
vegetable garbage was dumped into the Ohio River until this 
was prohibited by the U. S. Government. 

In 1892, a ten-year contract was granted to I. M. Simonin for 
the disposition of the vegetable garbage in a manner, scientific 
and sanitary, and not injurious to health and comfort. By the 
terms of the contract, the city was to pay $25,000 per year for 
the disposal, the vegetable garbage was to be collected by the 
city and delivered at the Company's boat at the foot of Main 
street, but the Street Cleaning Department that did the hauling 
found it much easier to haul the garbage mixed with ashes to 
the dump than to haul the long distances to the river. In con- 
sequence of this the Simonin Company, instead of 35,000 tons 
per year, got less than 15,000 tons. 

The works of the Simonin reduction process were built about 
five miles below the city and were fitted up with much the same 
equipment as the plant at Providence, R. I. 

Shortly after granting the contract for the disposal of the 
vegetable garbage, the city entered into an agreement with the / 
Jones Fertilizer Company, for ten years from July, 1893, f r tne \* 
collection and disposal of the animal garbage, by which the con- 
tractor was to make no charge for removal of dead animals 
and receive no pay for the privilege of doing so. Both these 
means of disposal continued in force until 1902, when the city 
advertised for bids for the combined service for five years for 
the vegetable garbage from June, 1902, and for four years for 
the Jones contract from July, 1903. Proposals were accepted 
from another reduction company and the Simonin Company dis- 
continued its work and disposed of its plant. 

The work of the Simonin Company was conducted at a disad- 
vantage because of the relatively small amount received from the 
city's carts and the admixture of ashes and foreign substances, the 
cost and difficulties of transportation by water on a swiftly mov- 
ing river with ice obstructions in winter and floods in spring, 



330 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

and more than all the absence of the animal matters, which were 
the property of another company. 

The quantities received were in 1898 reported by Chapin to be 
15,000 tons that were disposed of at a cost of $1.62 per ton. 

New Orleans. The third and last plant built under the 
Simonin patents was in New Orleans, La., in the summer of 
1894. This was a costly and elaborate installation, designed with 
the benefit of all the experience derived from observation of the 
working of the previous plants, and it was expected to produce 
far better results. But the city ordinances for the separation of 
garbage from foreign matters were inadequate or else were not 
enforced. After a few months of unsuccessful efforts the con- 
tract was abandoned at great loss to the investors. The city 
resumed its former method of disposal by dumping into the 
Mississippi River, a method which prevails to this day. 



CHAPTER XIV. 

THE ARNOLD PROCESS IN BOSTON AND NEW YORK. 

The first plant of the Arnold process for municipal service 
was at Boston, Mass., in 1895. This was located at Mt. Vernon 
Street, Ward 20, Dorchester, and comprised an engine house 
50 x 40 feet, and main building 120 feet square. The construc- 
tion was from the plans of Mr. C. Edgerton of Philadelphia, 
Pa. The contract was taken by the New England Construction 
Company, operating under the Arnold process, and was for a 
period of ten years, the city granting the land rent free, deliver- 
ing the garbage daily, and paying $2,500 yearly and 25 cents per 
ton on all quantities above 20 tons per day. The plant began 
work in January, 1895, and in February was notified to abate 
nuisance of odors from digestors, and the offensive water from 
condensers which was discharged into the sewers. The nuisance 
continued, and on March 2ist the license was- revoked, and 
subsequently the plant discontinued. 

The second Boston plant under the Arnold process was built 
by the New England Sanitary Product Company in 1898, at 
the Cow Pasture, a point of land one-half mile wide and one 
mile long, extending into Boston Harbor from the town of 
Dorchester. There is, within a radius of two miles, a popu- 
lation of 50,000 to 75,000, and as this plant represented the im- 
proved methods of the Arnold process, a particular description 
is added. This was written when the question of renewal of 
the plant was under consideration. 

The works cost, to erect and equip, upwards of $300,000 
the ground being city property, 200 x 120 feet. The buildings 
were 120 x 80 feet, containing digestors, boilers, engines, settling 
tanks, etc. The machinery comprised a 200 horse-power engine, 
engine for pumps, conveyors, presses, condensing pump, etc. 
Twenty-five men are employed during the day and four at night, 
besides ten on scows. 

The city collects the garbage from a population of about 

33* 



332 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

400,000 and dumps it at Fort Hill wharf, through openings in 
the platform, into scows lying below. These scows are owned 
and operated by the Garbage Reduction Company. The scows 
are towed to the works and, by conveyor, the garbage is carried 
to the upper story of the digestor room. These digesters are 
thirty-two in number, in two rows of sixteen each, and further 
divided into eight sections of four each. Each section contributes 
to a single receiving tank. The digesters have a capacity of 
eight tons each, are conical at the lower end and are fed by 
the traveling conveyor from the scows. After being rilled, steam 
is admitted at about 60 Ibs. pressure, the cooking process con- 
tinued from ten to fourteen hours, according to the season and 
the character of the garbage, when the steam is shut off and 
four hours allowed for the contents to cool. 

The digesters are dumped into the receiving tank below. 
The contents consist of solid matter with five or six inches of 
water lying above it and the oil or grease floating on the water. 

The receiving tanks drain into gutters, and the solid matter is 
passed through a rotary pressing machine, the Edgerton press. 
The pressure is controlled by lo-ton springs, allowing the pas- 
sage of cans, bricks, stove lids, etc., without injury to the press. 
The liquids and grease pressed out pass to the gutters. The 
water and grease run along the gutter to the grease room, deposit- 
ing more or less sand, dirt and finely divided parts of the 
tankage. 

In the grease room the water and fats pass through a series 
of square catch-basins, connected by openings in the lower part 
of the partitions between them, which results in the accumula- 
tion of oil or grease on the surface of the water in each basin. 
This oil is skimmed out by hand with long scoops into a receiver 
and pumped to sedimentation tanks on the floor above, from 
which it is drawn down into a large iron tank furnished with 
a depression along the centre of the bottom, where the water 
and sediment may collect. 

The oil or grease is piped off into barrels from a point a 
few inches above the bottom of the tank. It is a slightly turbid, 
dark brown liquid, and without any offensive smell. The water 
remaining in the catch-basins escapes into the sea. The pressed 
solid matter, known as tankage, is carried by the conveyors to 



THE DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY REDUCTION. 333 

the engine room, where it is burned in the furnaces under the 
boilers. 

The weight of a cubic foot of garbage is from 45 to 56 pounds, 
or a maximum of i^ tons for each 56 cubic feet. The garbage 
contains from 7 to 10 per cent, of foreign matters, and the 
quantities are from 140 to 150 tons daily. The yield of grease 
is 2 per cent, and the tankage 10 to 12 per cent. 

The tankage used as fuel to the amount of 35 to 40 tons 
daily is said to replace about five tons of coal, and must, there- 
fore, be worth about 50 cents per ton as fuel. 

Measure for Suppressing Odors. The steam from the di- 
gestors is conveyed by pipes to a Buckley condenser, where it 
meets with a current of sea water and is carried off into a "hot 
well," whence part of the odor is carried by the water into 
the sea. 

Part, however, escapes from the hot well and is conducted 
to a Bunsen burner at the foot of the chimney, where it is in- 
tended that it should be consumed. The odors from the digesters 
and grease room are collected by means of hoods arranged one 
over each press. These hoods lead by vertical pipes into a ^ 
horizontal pipe furnished with exhaust fans, and the odors are 
thus carried to the furnaces and there supposed to be destroyed. 
While the liquids are running from the receiving tanks and 
presses, the gutters are covered with iron plates. 

In and about the buildings, a strong caramel odor is detected 
continuously during operation and is derived probably from 
the tankage after dumping the digestors. This odor naturally 
escapes by open doors and windows and is distributed by the 
wind. The well-known raw garbage odor is also noticed when 
the scows are being unloaded, but its range is very limited. 

The third and most objectionable odor is traced to the chimneys 
of the plant. It is not observed near the plant, but is carried 
to a distance by the winds and on a cloudy day is especially 
likely to be carried downward to the ground level, where it is 
extremely offensive. There were complaints of odors from this 
plant early in 1899, and hearings were held in June and July 
of that year. The evidence went to show that the odor com- 
plained of. was distinct from the sewage pumping station and 
to the gas works; both of which were near the garbage plant. 



334 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

In the spring of 1900 there were renewed complaints and 
hearings, and a second exhaustive investigation by the Board 
of Health led to a second formal declaration that the garbage 
plant constituted a nuisance, and in August an effort was made 
to abate it as a nuisance under the provisions of the contract. 

The matter was taken to the courts, and finally settled by 
the removal of the plant to Spectacle Island, about three miles 
further down Boston harbor. By the terms of the contract, the 
city paid $140,000 to the company for the costs of removal. 

THE SEMET-SOLVAY PROCESS FOR RECOVERY OF AMMONIA FROM 
GARBAGE TANKAGE. 

The use of by-product ovens as means of recovering ammonia 
from garbage was the idea of Dr. Bruno Terne, U. S. Pat. 
619,055, while chemist of the Sanitary Product Company of New 
York, which controls the garbage reduction process in use at 
New York, Philadelphia and Boston. He saw an opportunity 
to utilize the solid and liquid residuum to better advantage than 
previously possible, and for obtaining from them a large part 
of their nitrogen in the more available form of ammonium 
sulphate, or crude liquor. 

The project was brought to the notice of the Semet-Solvay 
Company of Syracuse, N. Y., and tests were made by them 
of twenty tons of pressed tankage in their coke ovens at Syra- 
cuse. These tests showed that from one ton of tankage con- 
taining 40 per cent, of water, there were obtained approximately 
164 pounds of ammonia, reckoned as sulphate, 488 pounds of 
carbonized tankage, and 4,000 cubic feet of gas of about 300 
B. T. U., together with a small quantity of tar. On the basis 
of these results, the construction of a coke oven plant to work 
in conjunction with the garbage reduction plant at Boston was 
undertaken. 

The reduction plant was installed at the extremity of Old 
Harbor Point, Dorchester. The building was brick, 120 feet 
square, divided by a partition wall into two equal parts. One 
part contained the digesters, thirty-two in number, and con- 
veyors, and was open to the roof. The other portion, having 
a second story, contained, on the lower floor, the evaporators, 
boilers and engines. 



THE DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY REDUCTION. 335 

The coke ovens, condensing and washing plant, ammonia 
concentrator, and dryers, were placed in a wooden mill con- 
struction, 45 x 54 feet, immediately adjoining the main building. 
The by-product coke ovens were in a construction off this ell, 
54 x 45 feet, enclosed in a steel frame with galvanized iron 
covering. There was a saparate steel chimney for the coking 
plant, 80 feet high, 4 feet diameter. The coke ovens were of 
the Semet-Solvay type seven in number, 30 feet long, 7 feet 
high, 1 8 inches wide; a long narrow high chamber with charging 
hole on the top, the sides of the chambers lined with fire brick, 
with double walls forming flues through which the heat and 
flame from the gas burners passed. These flames and heat 
completely enclosed the ovens and finally passed beneath them 
to the smoke stack. There were doors at each end of each oven, 
lined with fire brick, one set of which was raised by hydraulic 
power. 

The gas evolved in the operation of coking, was, in the 
Syracuse test, about sufficient in calorific power to supply the 
heat, but for starting, and to bridge over any irregularity in 
supply, two gas producers were installed. The dry tankage 
was charged into the ovens through the openings on top and 
leveled off to uniform heights. 

The residue from the carbonization or coking process, was 
a light granular substance, somewhat resembling ground coffee, 
only darker in color. It was withdrawn from the ovens by a 
mechanical extractor, consisting of a scraper bucket conveyor, 
traveling on a steel beam, 40 feet long. This was carried on 
a frame running on wheels. 

The carbonized charge was received in a car and by elevator 
raised to the floor above, where it was screened and mixed with 
the requisite portion of "stick" before passing through the An- 
derson dryer, emerging in its final form as a fertilizer base. 

The gas from the retorts or ovens was passed through a 
water-sealed hydraulic main, placed on top of the ovens, and 
then through a pair of tubular surface condensers cooled with 
sea water, to the exhauster, which forced it through a compart- 
ment washer, where the ammonia was removed by absorption 
in water. 

The exit gas from the washer was led to the oven burners : 



336 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

and the ammoniacal liquor, after passing through a gravity tar 
separator, was collected in storage tanks. From these it was 
pumped to the concentrator feeding tank as required. 

The ammonia concentrator was of the tower pattern, consist- 
ing of a dozen or more flanged cylindrical cast-iron plates, 40 
inches in diameter, bolted one on top of the other. Each con- 
tained a baffle-plate of the mushroom type covering an outlet in 
the middle so as to form a water seal. The live steam admitted 
at the bottom of the column forced its way up through the 
water seals which were maintained by the weak liquor fed into 
the top of the column and passing from section to section, the 
ammonia being drawn off as the liquor passed down. 

The gaseous ammonia and steam passing up through the 
column were cooled by contact with a series of pipes enclosed 
in a continuation of the tower, at the same time heating the 
weak incoming liquor, and passed over to the final condensing 
worm, where they were condensed, passing thence to the storage 
tanks in the form of crude strong liquor. 

Apparatus for the manufacture of sulphate of ammonia was 
also provided on the upper floor of the condensing house. This 
comprised lead-lined saturating tanks, acid tanks, drainage bins 
and piping. Storage tanks for acids were on the ground floor 
near the water front, and an air compressor and auxiliary tank 
were provided to lift the acid to the saturators. 

The plant was started in November, 1898, and continued 
until February, 1899, when, with the reduction works, it was 
partially destroyed by fire. 

Mr. Terne says: "The difficulties unavoidably attendant upon 
the working out of a new process prevented the immediate 
realization of the results obtained in the preliminary experiments, 
but there is no doubt that they would have been fully reached 
had not the disaster intervened." 

When the reduction plant was removed, by order of the 
courts, and rebuilt at Spectacle Island, three miles further down 
the harbor, the ammonia saving process plant was not included. 
No apparatus of this kind for garbage or tankage treatment is 
now in use. 

The Third Boston Plant. The removal and establishment 
of the reduction plant under the Arnold system from Cow 



THE DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY REDUCTION. 337 

Pasture, Dorchester Point, to Spectacle Island, on the Boston 
harbor, about three miles further down, was made in the year 
1906. The works erected included a house enclosing sixteen 
digesters on the upper story, beneath which were the four 
rotary presses, and connected with these were the gutters which 
received the water and grease and conducted them to the set- 
tling basins. The garbage was taken from the scows by a 
traveling conveyor, and by means of a chute placed in each 
digester, according to the quantity required. 

Besides the rotary presses, a powerful hydraulic press is also 
used for the final recovery of grease and water from the finely 
divided portions of tankage gathered from the gutters. 

At the time of the examination by the writer, in 1907, the 
plant was handling upwards of 100 tons per day in an efficient 
manner. The tankage at this time was burned under the boilers, 
as no process had been established for its treatment and manu- 
facture as a fertilizer, but it was understood that additional 
works were being constructed about three hundred yards away 
from this building, which would receive the tankage, recover the 
15 per cent, of grease which it contained, and manufacture the 
residuum for the fertilizer market. 

Subsequently, in the summer of 1907, many complaints were 
made against the works on the score of offensive odors carried 
to nearby dwellings in the summer, since Spectacle Island is 
nearly surrounded by the seaside residences of Boston people. 
In every direction except one, if the winds were favorable, these 
odors would be carried long distances, and would become highly 
offensive. Under the contract with the city the company has 
still one and one-half years for its contract to be continued. 

General Disposal Work in Boston. Before the establishment 
of the reduction plants in Boston, the garbage of the city was 
separated by the households, then was delivered to contractors, 
who carried it long distances in the country for feeding to 
animals. In 1893 an d 1894, the city derived a revenue of $20,000 
from this source, but conveyance by steam cars was objected 
to on the score of nuisance, and the handling of garbage at 
the various depots where it was sold to the farmers for feed 
was exceedingly offensive. This practice of selling the garbage 
was abandoned as soon as the reduction plant was established, 



338 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

and only in some portions of the outlying suburbs, as at Brigh- 
ton, Roxbury, Dorchester, etc., is the garbage now disposed 
of in this way. 

Light Refuse. In 1888 and 1889, at the request of the Board 
of Health, tenders for contract were asked for by the city for 
the construction of a refuse disposal plant upon city property 
adjoining Fort Hill Wharf. After some delay a contract was 
granted to the Refuse Utilization Company, a corporation 
formed for the purpose, which erected a plant and received all 
the light refuse and rubbish collected from an area of about 
ninety miles of streets, and containing approximately 200,000 
people. The city by this contract paid $5,500 per year, and 
furnished the grounds for the company free of rent. 

Since the plant is in the hands of a private company, which 
has jealously guarded its commercial work, no exact informa- 
tion is obtainable as to the value of the product recovered for 
market, or the cost of doing the work. The operation of the 
plant was described and illustrated in a previous chapter. 

In the year 1907, the Mayor appointed a commission to con- 
sider the general question of the collection and disposal of the 
municipal refuse of the city. This commission comprised Prof. 
Sedgwick of the Boston Institute of Technology, Mr. X. H. 
Goodnough, Chief Engineer of the Massachusetts State Board 
of Health, and Mr. Wm. Jackson, City Engineer of Boston. This 
Commission has been for some months obtaining data and 
visiting all the principal installations throughout the country 
and is about to formulate a general plan for some economical 
collection service in the city proper, and also in adjoining wards, 
which include Dorchester, Roxbury, West Roxbury, Jamaica 
Plains, New Brighton and East Boston. This plan will in- 
clude complete methods for the collection and the disposal of 
the general refuse by methods and systems suitable for each 
individual case. 

It is understood also that the recommendation has been made 
for the construction of an enlarged and perfected utilization y 
plant to be built in the place of the present plant at Fort Hill 
Wharf, and to be operated for the benefit of the city instead 
of a contracting company. 

The preliminary report of collections, quantities, proportions 




\ 



THE DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY REDUCTION. 339 

and present methods of disposal, by Mr. X. H. Goodnough, is 
condensed in Chap. VII. 

EARLY METHODS OF WASTE DISPOSAL IN NEW YORK CITY. 

In tracing the development of the methods of garbage dis- 
posal by the reduction processes in New York City, it will be 
of interest to briefly outline the earlier history of the subject, 
with some account of the attempts to better the sanitary con- 
ditions, as carried on under the advice and suggestions of ad- 
visory boards by the successive Commisisoners and Superin- 
tendents of Street Cleaning Service. 

The organization of the street cleaning service as a separate 
branch of the administration work dates from the year 1881, 
prior to which time the collection and disposal of waste was 
done by contractors under the direction of the Police De- 
partment. 

The city acquired teams, built or rented stables, organized 
the force for cleaning the streets, for the collection of house- 
hold wastes, procured scows, and tugs for towing these outside 
the harbor limits. 

The practice was to dump overboard, nominally at a point 
below Sandy Hook, but as a matter of fact the scows were 
unloaded at any place where it could be done without observa- 
tion by the officers of the Government in charge of the care of 
the harbor. 

For several years this service for collection and disposal was 
continued with great complaints from the citizens for unsatis- 
factory collection and with repeated protests from the property- 
holders on the shores of Long Island and New Jersey. After 
ten years of complaint and remonstrances an Advisory Com- 
mission was appointed to inquire into the defects of this method 
and recommend some better system. 

This Commission, appointed by Mayor Grant in 1891, in- 
cluded Messrs. Morris K. Jessup, Thatcher M. Adams, Prof. 
C. F. Chandler, D. H. King and Gen. F. V. Greene. The 
report was devoted chiefly to the collection of the wastes, and 
established some principles -defining the character and treat- 
ment of general refuse, which became a basis for after Com- 
missions to extend and amplify. It was reported that street 



340 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

sweepings were not of enough value to pay the work of trans- 
portation; that garbage, when kept separated, is valuable for 
fertilizer or for feeding swine ; that coal ashes, when free of 
other matters, make good filling, and that these three forms of 
wastes, when mixed, lose their pecuniary value, unless for filling 
behind bulkheads, or on land remote from dwellings. 

The Commission also found that the Department of Street 
Cleaning was badly managed; that the laborers were inefficient 
and held their places by political influence ; that the plant of the 
Department was insufficient and poorly located; that the manner 
of disposal of refuse was unsatisfactory ; that the co-operation of 
the other departments of the city Police Justices, Health and 
Police was largely lacking, and that the management of the 
Department required men experienced in .the control of trans- 
portation means and executive capacity of a high order. 

The practical effect of this report was the reorganization of 
the Department by Legislative enactment in 1892, with increased 
appropriations, but little real progress in improving the condi- 
tions. There was still the appointment of officers and force 
for political purposes, the work of the Department being a 
secondary consideration. 

Later, in 1892, the inquiries into this subject were continued 
by Messrs. Theo. F. Meyers, the Comptroller, and Edw. P. 
Parker of the Board of Estimates. They took firm ground 
^against sea-dumping, and strongly recommended cremation as 
the best means for disposal, but as it might be some time before 
a cremation system suitable for the city's needs became avail- 
able, they advocated the deposit of the waste to make ground 
about Riker's Island. The adoption of this method a year later 
gave rise to a nuisance of offensive- odors, and subsequent legis- 
lative action prohibiting the dumping of mixed refuse, contain- 
ing garbage, at Riker's Island. 

This was followed in 1894 by the appointment by Mayor 
Gilroy of a second Advisory Committee, composed of ex-Mayor 
Franklin Edson, Thomas L. James, Lt. Comr. D. Delehanty, 
U. S. N., Hon. Chas. G. Wilson, President of the Board of 
Health, and Mr. W. S. Andrews, Commissioner of Street 
Cleaning. 

The members of this Board, in person and by representatives. 



THE DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY REDUCTION. 341 

made an extended examination of all methods in use for gar- 
bage disposal in this country, one member visiting Europe for 
a survey of the means there used. 

They did not find cremation methods altogether satisfactory, 
as no plant of any considerable size was then in operation. They 
also reported that reduction processes were "thoroughly sani- 
tary, and although not free from offense, can doubtless be made 
so." The Board declared that light refuse could not be deposited 
at sea at a less distance than 200 miles from the harbor with- 
out contaminating the shores. 

To obtain some data for further recommendations the Board 
invited proposals or plans for final disposal of the waste of 
New York. 

There were seventy different plans submitted. Of these forty- ^ 
nine were considered practicable, and were classified as follows : 
Eighteen proposed to burn all the waste, six to burn garbage 
only, two others had a separation process with utilization of 
the valuable parts and burning the rest, seven advocated reduc- 
tion, four would employ self-dumping boat for long sea convey- 
ance, and twelve were included under miscellaneous or unde- 
fined plans. Leaving aside the miscellaneous list, twenty-six 
were in favor of cremation, seven of reduction and four of 
continuing sea-dumping. Many of those who presented plans 
were afforded an opportunity to explain to the Board in detail 
what they proposed and the results to be expected. 

The author's contribution to the literature of the Advisory 
Board was contained in a small pamphlet advocating the dis- 
position by fire by two alternative methods : 

First By several plants placed upon wharves at different points, from 
ten to twelve in number, at which the putrescible organic waste would be 
destroyed in furnaces of approved design, the power developed by this 
combustion to be employed for sorting out the marketable parts of the 
refuse and for conveying and loading the residuum remaining and the 
great bulk of household ashes into scows for conveyance to Riker's Island. 

Second The disposal of the garbage at Riker's Island by establishing a 
large cremating plant for destroying the putrescible matter, the power 
derived therefrom to be used for conveying and distributing the ashes of 
the city for making new ground. 

The pamphlet gave a short account of the English destruc- 



342 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

tors, their capacity, cost of operating expenses, of construction 
and other details of some fifty installations, out of about 125 
then in use in Great Britain. There was added a compara- 
tive cost for a plant to be established in New York for similar 
work, with some indication as to the saving in annual cost to 
the city, as against the disposal of the garbage only, by reduc- 
tion, or the continued disposal by conveyance in self -dumping 
steam lighters at sea. 

Mayor Gilroy's Advisory Board finally recommended: 

That dumping into the harbor or its tributary waters should cease. 

That the householders should be requested to separate kitchen garbage 
from the ashes and other house refuse. 

That the collection should be made in iron vessels with tight covers. 

That the daily garbage collections should be delivered into storage bins 
or self-dumping propelled boats of approved type. 

That the garbage should be disposed of by reduction, and the city should 
invite bids from companies controlling these systems. 

That a separate collection should be made of other refuse not other- 
wise provided for, which should be taken to Riker's Island, or elsewhere, 
and that the conveyance of this should be by self-propelled boats to be 
constructed and owned by the city. 

If there was any market value to street sweepings for fertilizers, they 
should be sold if worth more than for filling purposes. 

This last named recommendation of the Advisory Board, 
which was adopted and followed out by the city authorities, 
committed the city to one particular method that treated only 
one-twelfth of all the refuse, as against the cremation system 
that disposed of the whole. It established a monopoly by con- 
tract, which has been perpetuated, and from which the city 
has since never been able to free itself. It further denied the 
right of competition by any form of disposal by cremation' 
means, and offered no opportunity to show what might be done 
by the use of apparatus that was entirely successful in other 
great cities of the world. / 

While condemning the dumping at sea, it still recommended 
this be carried on at greatly increased cost for transportation 
with no guarantee that it would be any more successful than 
in the past. 

At that time there were only three reduction and extraction 
companies at work. The quantities of garbage treated by these 



THE DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY REDUCTION. 343 

were insignificant compared with the amounts to be handled 
here. Several plants had failed or been closed by reason of 
nuisance, and the whole work in this direction was largely ex- 
perimental and undetermined. This unwise recommendation of 
a body of estimable gentlemen, acting upon information, and 
not upon practical engineering knowledge or any previous ac- 
quaintance with the questions, did much to delay the progress 
of the general question of a satisfactory disposal of the com- 
munal waste of American towns. 

INVESTIGATION AND EXPERIMENTS OF COL. GEO. E. WARING, 

IN NEW YORK CITY, UPON GARBAGE TREATMENT, BY THE 

METHODS OF EXTRACTION AND REDUCTION IN 1895. 

When Col. Waring became Commissioner of Street Cleaning 
of New York City, in January, 1895, tne wastes of the city were 
towed to sea and thrown overboard. This had been the practice 
for years, one that is both wasteful and objectionable, but no bet- 
ter means had been found available. In 1895, Col. Waring made 
.inquiries into the methods in use in all civilized countries for 
waste disposal, visiting Europe himself for this purpose, besides 
carrying on an exhaustive survey by competent assistants in this 
country. 

The claims made for sanitary treatment and economy in the 
disposal of garbage when separated from other forms of refuse 
were brought strongly to his attention, resulting in an invita- 
tion to the various companies engaged in this work to present in- 
formal bids naming the prices at which they would be will- 
ing to receive and dispose of the garbage of the city. 

Twenty-six answers were received. The average cost per 
ton from those proposing to destroy by incineration was 90 
cents, and the average for utilization by the several extraction 
and reduction means was 55 cents per ton, but of all these bid- 
ders only one-half were believed to be sufficiently experienced 
and responsible to make offers which would be acceptable to 
the city. Under these circumstances, it was thought advisable 
to make an independent investigation of the various methods, 
and a series of examinations was proposed in the city's behalf 
which should include the cost of operation, the value of the 
commercial products, and the adaptability of each process to 



344 T HE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

the needs of the city. This invitation was accepted by several 
companies, and in the summer of 1895 more than 3,000 tons 
of garbage in the cities of New York, Brooklyn, Buffalo, Phila- 
delphia and St. Louis were treated by different methods under 
the supervision of the inspectors appointed by Col. Waring. 
These trials of apparatus took place as follows : 

Merz Universal Extractor and Construction 

Co . Buffalo June 

Merz Universal Extractor and Construction 

Co St. Louis July 

The Sanative Refuse Co., Process No. i . . . .New York August 

At these three plants, the grease was extracted by the use of 
hydro-carbon solvents, and the remaining solids converted into 
fertilizer base. 

The Preston Process Brooklyn, N. Y. . July 

The Bridgeport Utilization Co., (Holthaus 

Process) Bridgeport February 

The American Incinerating Co. (Arnold 

Process) Philadelphia J u ly 

At these three plants, the grease was extracted by cooking 
and mechanical pressure and the solids made into fertilizers. 

The Sanative Refuse Co., Process No. 2 

(Pierce) New York September 

The American Reduction Co Brooklyn May 

Both of these companies made the garbage into complete 
fertilizer, but the first extracted the grease by solvents, while 
the second used acid. 

In method No. I of the Sanative Refuse Company, the raw 
garbage was placed in steel tanks and covered with naphtha, 
the tanks then being tightly closed and heated by steam. After 
five hours of this cooking in naphtha, the liquid was run off 
and its constitutents separated, while the tankage was taken out 
and dried. From New York summer garbage this method ex- 
tracted an average of 2.4 per cent, of grease and left the wet 
tankage almost odorless. The process was rather wasteful of 
naphtha, but most satisfactory from the sanitary standpoint. 

Method No. 2 of the Sanative Refuse Company completed 
the utilization process by making the tankage into a finished 
fertilizer. 



THE DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY REDUCTION. 345 

The American Reduction Company made a complete fertilizer 
by cooking the garbage in dilute acid and then adding the 
other necessary ingredients, drying and grinding. 

The Standard Construction and Utilization Company, Phila- 
delphia, August. This company did the preliminary cooking 
in steam jacketed digesters, the grease afterwards being recov- 
ered by pressing and separated by flotation and skimming. 

The information obtained by the Department was in the 
nature of confidential communications, and so far as is known 
has never been made public, but from the subsequent action 
taken, it would appear that some of the processes either did 
not comply with the requirements of the city or were unable 
to offer advantageous terms for the work. 

This inquiry touched on many important facts in connection 
with the subject, dealing with the seasonal variation in char- 
acter and quantities, the system of collection by contract or 
by city agency, the admixture of foreign matters when treatment 
by extraction or reduction is to be used, the quantities of water 
present as affecting results in manufacturing, the destruction 
of noxious gases by condensation or cremation, and the use of 
disinfectants in collection work. 

The report also included a general description of the ap- 
paratus employed in each process of extraction or reduction, 
with a brief account of the final means of drying, grinding and 
preparing for market, used by all the companies. 

The selling value of a ton of summer garbage was thus 
stated : 

Grease, 40 Ibs at 30. $i .20 

Tankage 

Ammonia, 13 ' " 8c. i .04 

Phosphoric Acid, 13 ' %> " ic. .13 

Potash, 3 ' " 3^c. . 10 

$2.47 

Appended to, or included in, Col. Waring's reports were ex- 
aminations made by his assistants upon the disposal of gar- 
bage from the hotels of New York, not a part of the city's 
work, but taken by private collectors and fed to animals outside 
the citv. 

Garbage grease, its quantity, uses and value, was also con- 



346 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

sidered, as well as the fertilizer trade in general and the prob- 
able effect of a large new supply that might result from the 
general adoption of these new methods. There was also an 
estimate of the junk trade in marketable parts of the city's refuse 
collected by cartmen throughout the town. 

All these facts, concisely put, gathered in one small volume, 
form a history of what was then the situation, the possibilities, 
and to some extent a prophecy of the future work to be done 
in this line of waste collection and disposal such as has not 
been repeated in this country. 

The thoroughness which characterized all of Col. War- 
ing's municipal work, and the able assistance of Messrs. M. 
Craven, H. Hill and C. H. Koyl, together united to give definite 
form and a fixed method to what had, up to then, been uncer- 
tain and indefinite, in the investigation of the proper methods 
of disposal of municipal waste. 

BEGINNING OF GARBAGE REDUCTION IN NEW YORK. 

Pending the close of the examination of the possibilities of 
the reduction method, Col. Waring issued advertisements call- 
ing for bids for the disposal of the combined city waste by any 
method that could be shown to be sanitary and efficient. Sev- / 
eral bids were received in December, 1895, but these upon exam- 
ination appeared to be deficient and they were rejected. 

The next advertisement, February, 1896, asked for bids for 
the disposal of garbage only. The replies received were all con- 
sidered unsatisfactory, and they were rejected. In March an- 
other call was made for tenders for garbage, and also for the 
disposition of ashes and street sweepings. The bids received 
for the disposal of ashes and street sweepings were rejected. 
The proposal of the Merz Extracting Company in the sum of 
$90,000 per year was accepted by the Commissioner, but was 
not accepted by the Board of Estimate. Subsequently, in June; 
the bid of the Sanitary Utilization Company of New York was 
approved by this Board, and the company was granted the con- 
tract for a term of five years at the annual rate of $89,990, to 
date from August I, 1896. It will be noted that this price was 
$10 less than that tendered by the Merz Company. The contract 
price included furnishing scows for the transportation of the 



THE DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY REDUCTION. 347 

garbage and its final disposition in an unobjectionable manner. 
The quantity for the old city of New York, now the Borough 
of Manhattan, was estimated at 500 tons per day for 313 work- 
ing days, or about 156,500 tons per year. This was at the rate 
of approximately 575^ cents per ton for transportation and dis- 
posal. 

"Garbage" was defined as meaning the refuse of all organic 
nature, not including street sweepings, collected by the city carts 
or by duly authorized private carts, and delivered at the dumps 
or other places of final disposition, and containing not more than 
10 per cent, by weight of other refuse. 

In November, 1896, the city of Brooklyn granted a contract 
for five years for the collection, transportation and disposal of 
the city garbage by the Brooklyn Sanitary Utilization Company, 
one of the provisions being that the company should receive the 
garbage at its plant up to May, 1897, after which there should 
be ready a separate plant for the disposal of the Brooklyn gar- 
bage. The quantity of garbage was estimated at 250 tons per 
day. The maximum capacity of the new Brooklyn plant was to 
be 500 tons per day. 

THE BARREN ISLAND REDUCTION PLANT. 

The New York Sanitary Utilization Company was formed by 
capitalists from Philadelphia who controlled the Arnold process 
of garbage reduction under a corporation known as the American 
Sanitary Product Company. This is the parent company that 
controls or is interested in all the various companies operating 
under the patents of this process in Philadelphia, New York, 
Brooklyn, Boston, Baltimore, Washington, Newark, and Atlantic 
City. 

The combined plants for New York and Brooklyn were built 
in 1895-6 at Barren Island, a small island at the mouth of Jamaica 
Bay, on Rockaway Inlet, in the rear of Rockaway Beach. The 
distance of this location from the City Hall in New York City 
is twelve miles by land, and about twenty by water. 

The garbage is dumped by the city's collection carts into the 
company's scows at five wharfs, three on the North and two 
on the East River. The average towing distance from New 
York is twenty-two miles, and about eighteen miles from Brook- 



348 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

lyn. The scows carry an average of 300 tons of garbage, and 
one tug tows two scows. 

The quantities collected in tons for three years were as follows : 

Manhattan and 

New York Bronx Brooklvn Total 

1897 1898 1899 1899 1899 

158,500 142,400 151,600 104,000 255,600 

Quantities per day 500 tons 455 tons 484 tons 333 tons 817 tons 

Cost per ton 570. 640. 590. 

The scows were formerly unloaded by buckets and scoops, dis- 
charging into a hopper from which the garbage was carried by 
a conveyor to the digestors. The present method is by stationary 
conveyors or continuous steel troughs, with connected scrapers or 
drags, carried on sprocket chains, the scows being moved forward 
as they are unloaded. Over each digester are sliding doors in 
the bottom of the troughs which are connected with a funnel and 
feed pipe with a swivel joint, so that each digester may be fed 
in turn. The digestors are of the usual type, vertical steel cylin- 
ders, holding about eight tons, of ^-inch steel plate strongly riv- 
eted, dome shaped at the top, with conical lower ends for deliv- 
ery of the cooked garbage into receiving tanks. 

Every four digestors are connected with one tank also made 
of steel plates 14^ feet long, 12 feet 6 inches wide, 7 feet high, 
having a bottom sloping each way to the center. 

An opening is provided at the bottom for discharging the cooked 
garbage by means of a pipe into cars where it is built up with 
wooden racks and gunny sacks into layers and run beneath the 
screw presses. There are sixteen presses, operated at a pressure 
of 100 pounds per square inch on the press screw head, or platen. 
When this process is completed the cars are run to the end of 
the building, the tankage lifted to the second floor and then shov- 
elled into the dryers. 

There are twelve driers, each about 14 feet long and 5 inches 
in diameter, placed horizontally, carrying a charge of three tons. 
These driers are jacketed with live steam at 75 pounds pressure, 
and are provided with rotating blades on a center shaft to keep 
the tankage stirred up. 

From the driers the tankage is discharged into cross conveyors 
leading to the screens. These are the usual type of rotary screens, 
and deliver the tankage in condition for bagging for market. 



THE DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY REDUCTION. 349 

After the bones are picked out the tailings are burned or are 
used for filling. 

Going back to the operation of the presses, the liquids from 
the pressed garbage fall into a system of drains beneath the press- 
room floor which carries the hot water and the grease from the 
presses into a series of shallow tanks with partitions extending 
only part way to the bottom. By continued circulation and move- 
ment in these basins the grease in cooling separates from the 
water, is removed by skimming, and finally goes into the barrels 
for shipment. In the evaporation process a form of vacuum pan 
is used. The final product, known as "stick," a heavy, dense body 
of fluid substances, is mixed with the highly dried tankage to 
form a superior grade of fertilizer. 

Provisions for the prevention of nuisances incidental to the 
various processes. are an important part of the whole when such 
enormous quantities of material are handled. In hot weather a 
deodorant known as "electrozone" was used. This is a product 
of hypo-chlorite of sodium evolved from sea water by powerful 
electrical currents, and is applied to lessen the odors from the 
green garbage in the scows. The scows are washed down after 
each trip and sprinkled with chloride of lime. 

The free steam and gases in the digester house are exhausted 
by an immense fan and are drawn into a long scrubber through 
which about 3,500 gallons of sea water are forced by pumps. The 
gases from the digestors, driers and evaporators are passed 
through spiral jet condensers; in these the gases and a jet of 
cold water fall together about 30 feet into a receiving tank. Un- 
condensed gases were formerly passed to the chimneys, entering 
at the rear of the boiler, but as the temperature of 600 was not 
sufficient to deodorize or consume these they are now discharged 
under water at some distance from the works. 

The machinery equipment includes seventeen steam boilers of 
250 horsepower each, four Corliss engines of 150 horsepower 
each, two smaller engines, two air compressors, three dynamos 
for lighting, several pumps for lifting water, and fans for ven- 
tilation. 

The Brooklyn plant is practically a duplicate of the New York 
plant. More digestors are to be added to make up a total of one 
hundred and twelve, which will give the whole plant a capacity 



350 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

for the treatment of 1,500 tons per day. (Description condensed 
from the Engineering News of February i, 1900.) 

THE SANITARY SIDE OF THE MATTER. 

The history of the Barren Island plant is one of strenuous 
effort to maintain its position against the determined opposition . 
of the surrounding population while at the same time embarrassed 
by a series of misfortunes and accidents which were beyond the 
power of the company to foresee. During the summer months 
there are probably three-fourths of a million people residing 
within a radius of three miles from the island, with free range 
for the winds which at this season blow mainly from the direc- 
tion of the south and southwest. While there are in the locality 
three other plants of a similar nature P. White Sons, for dead 
animals ; E. I. McKeever, for animals ; E. Frank Coe Fertilizer 
Co. it was claimed that the nauseous odors were chiefly due to 
the reduction works. 

The people complained to the Board of Health, but met with 
no encouragement. They appealed to the Legislature in 1899, 
and a bill was passed and vetoed by the Governor on the ground 
that six months was too short a time for the Street Cleaning 
Department to provide other means of disposal. The Legislature 
of 1900 caused a hearing to be held at which arguments were 
presented resulting in the passage of a bill, which was vetoed by 
Mayor Van Wyck, and was repassed by the Legislature and 
signed by Governor Roosevelt, who at that time clearly stated 
the aim and purpose of this action. 

On the 2Oth of April, 1900, he said: 

The city authorities should have presented a better plan for the dis- 
posal of the garbage to the last Legislature, but, instead, they hang back 
and make no effort to solve the Barren Island problem. That's the reason 
why these bills were passed. The city authorities evidently prefer to allow 
the present disposal contractors to profit by the existing methods than take 
the measures necessary to abate the nuisance and protect the public health. 
If I sign this bill it will be because they will be compelled to do something 
which otherwise they would not do in the public interest. 

The bill allowed twelve months from the time that it became a 
law, April, 1900, for the securing of other means of disposal, but 
provided that the Board of Health of the city might extend the 
operation of the time to include the then existing contracts up 




THE DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY REDUCTION. 351 

to August i, 1901. The Garbage Company took the matter to 
the courts, where, after long delay, the act was declared uncon- 
stitutional. 

Under the contracts with New York City and Brooklyn the 
Sanitary Utilization Company carried on its work at Barren 
Island until 1901, when the term of the first contract with New 
York expired. In March a fire which originated in the storage 
house destroyed a large amount of manufactured stock and the 
buildings in which it was kept. The loss was said to be $50,000. 
Complaints of nuisance from odors continued, but the operation 
of the works was uninterrupted. The company made great 
efforts to install every form of ventilating and preventive ap- 
paratus that might be of service, and took all possible precautions 
to stop the odors. On April 16, 1903, another fire greatly dam- 
aged the New York plant, the losses being reported at $100,000. 
For a short time a part of the garbage was dumped at sea until 
repairs could be made to the works. 

THE RETIREMENT OF COLONEL WARING AS COMMISSIONER. 

In 1897 tne cit Y government changed politically. Tammany 
again came into power, and on January i, 1898, Mr. Percy Nagle 
replaced Colonel Waring as Commissioner of Street Cleaning. 

The three years of the administration of the Department of 
Street Cleaning under Colonel Waring were years of earnest and 
continued effort to establish a system of efficient and economical 
work in all branches of the service. He first reorganized the 
personnel of the department, then repaired and increased the 
equipment for street cleaning. He improved the collection serv- 
ice, and caused to be built necessary stables and buildings for 
the mechanical department, making extensive additions to these. 
Following the suggestions of the Gilroy Commission he installed 
steel storage pocket bins for receiving waste and for quick work 
in loading scows. The point for sea-dumping was carried nine 
miles further out, and two large self-propelled steel dumping 
boats were purchased for transportation of the waste in any kind 
of weather. These boats were experimental, it being the inten- 
tion of the head of the department to add to these if they were 
found to be practical and economical. He began the dumping 
of ashes and refuse at Riker's Island after the establishment of 



35 2 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

the reduction plant which took care of the garbage, and this prac- 
tically stopped sea-dumping. 

For the light refuse disposal, Colonel Waring established the 
plant at East Seventeenth Street, from which in the course of 
three years the city derived a revenue of 61 cents to $I.IG 
per ton. 

The Commissioner also took up the method of street cleaning 
by hand, which he had seen operative abroad. The streets were 
divided into sections each under the care of one man who was 
responsible for its condition, each one of the street forces being 
equipped with apparatus invented for the purpose of assisting 
him to do his work effectually. 

In order to interest the people and in a measure supplement 
the exertions of the department force, Waring inaugurated the 
Juvenile Street Cleaning League, which was popular among the 
school children and proved to be a beneficial civic movement. 
Through the efforts of his assistants, under his direction, de- 
tailed information upon many subjects was collected, all of which 
up to the time of his administration had been neglected and 
ignored. Among these special reports are those upon the relative 
advantage and comparative costs of disposal at sea and by dump- 
ing, for the purpose of making land at Riker's Island and other 
points ; the private collection of garbage and its use as food for 
animals ; the garbage and tankage trade as connected with the 
fertilizer industry ; the value of street sweepings as a fertilizer ; 
the waste paper collection, its quantities and values ; the value of 
household ash ; the utilization of ashes and the products thereof ; 
a comprehensive and detailed account of the cost of street sweep- 
ing, including a description of the methods and machinery em- 
ployed for cleaning every variety of pavement. 

There are many minor subjects pertinent in one way or another 
to a description of the work of this bureau that received his per- 
sonal attention. Colonel Waring was always ready to listen to 
any new idea that promised to help out, and to give the suggestion 
a trial if he thought suitable. 

Probably this very efficient Commissioner will best be remem- 
bered for the creation of the "White Wings," the Street Clean- 
ing force which he formed into battalions under military disci- 
pline and rigid rules of behavior, whose annual parade in their 



THE DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY REDUCTION. 353 

white uniforms was a feature of the administration of Mayor 
Strong. The three thousand men under his control were im- 
bued with the spirit of their chief, and inspired with personal 
pride in their work, all of which gave them an esprit de corps 
hitherto conspicuously absent in the department, making them 
better citizens and better workers. 

His own estimate of the results attained at the end of his term 
of service may be quoted : 

The progress made thus far is satisfactory. An inefficient and ill- 
equipped working force long held under the heel of the spoilsman has 
been emancipated, organized and brought to its best. It now constitutes a 
brigade three thousand strong, made up of well-trained and disciplined 
men, the representative soldiers of cleanliness and health, soldiers of the 
public, self-respecting and life-saving. These men are fighting daily battles 
with dirt, and are defending the health of the whole people. The trophies 
of their victories are all about us, in clean pavements, clean feet, uncon- 
taminated air, a look of health on the faces of the people, and streets full 
of healthy children at play. 

This is the outcome of two and one-half years of strenuous effort 
at first against official opposition and much public criticism. Two and 
one-half years more, with a continuance of the present official favor and 
universal public approval should bring our work to perfection. It should 
make New York the cleanest, and should help to make it the healthiest 
city in the world. By that time the death rate should be reduced to fifteen 
per thousand, which would mean for our present population a saving of 
sixty lives per day out of one hundred and forty daily lost under the av- 
erage of 26.78 (1882-94). 



CHAPTER XV. 

THE ARNOLD REDUCTION PROCESS IN NEW YORK, PHILADELPHIA, 
BALTIMORE AND ATLANTIC CITY. 

Renewal of New York Contracts. The terms of five years' 
contract in New York City for the disposal of the garbage by 
the Sanitary Utilization Company (using the Arnold process) 
expired on August I, 1901. The contract forms for a new 
advertisement were ready in January, 1901, but they were with- 
held by Mr. Nagle, and not published until June, the bids being 
opened on the 27th of that month. 

The specifications provided for a plant of 1,000 tons capacity 
to be ready for work in 30 days, and to be reduction or crema- 
tion methods, as the contractors might elect, the contracts to 
include separate bids and plants for the Borough of Bronx as 
well as those for Manhattan. The following are the bids received 
for Manhattan: 

Per Year 

David Peoples (Philadelphia) $385,000 

John McNamee 390,000 

Seth L. Keeney 600,000 

Sanitary Utilization Company 232.000 

For the Bronx the bids were : 

Sanitary Utilization Company (5 years) $355,000 

Geo. W. Hyatt (5 years) 334,000 

The acceptance of the bid of the Sanitary Utilization Com- 
pany for Manhattan was recommended by Mr. Nagle, Com- 
missioner of Street Cleaning, and that of Mr. Hyatt for the 
Bronx. The Board of Estimate and Apportionment rejected 
all bids and instructed the Commissioner to prepare new speci- 
fications for bids for one year, instead of for five years. The 
new bids were advertised on July 20, and opened on July 30, 
after long controversy, and the Board of Estimate awarded the 
contract to the New York Sanitary Utilization Company for 
five years at $232,000 per year. 

354 



THE DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY REDUCTION. 355 

At the time of the award it was claimed by the Sanitary Utili- 
zation Company that the amounts of garbage had doubled, mak- 
ing necessary an increased capacity of their plant. This was 
accepted as a fact, without verification, but it was manifestly in- 
correct, as is shown by the reports of quantities for the previous 
year (1899). Assuming that an average amount of 500 tons 
daily for Manhattan was received, or a total of 158,500 tons for 
313 days, then the cost per ton would be $1.48, an increase of 
90^ cents per ton over the previous five-year contract, and a 
total increase of over a million dollars. 

The method adopted for letting this contract one day previous 
to the expiration of the old contract, demonstrated the power 
of a monopoly in controlling the public work of garbage dis- 
posal by rings and the favor of the local authorities. 

The renewal of the Brooklyn contract was obtained in a 
similar way, at an increased cost to the city, and the disposal of 
the garbage of the Boroughs of Manhattan and the Bronx by 
the Arnold process at Barren Island was continued. In the 
course of the following year the Sanitary Utilization Company 
contracted for the disposal of the Bronx garbage at the price 
of $22,500 per year, as against their previous bid of $71,000 
per year in 1901. 

The Accidents of Fire and Flood at Barren Island. The 
ground at Barren Island was originally about five acres of salt 
marsh, to which about three acres more have been added by 
filling. Around the border of the island spiles have been driven 
to protect it against the wash of waves and the scour of the 
tideway. It has happened that the shifting sand of the bottom 
has changed in such a manner as to undermine the bulkhead 
and allow the buildings to slip over into the deep water of the 
channel. Such a collapse took place in 1905, involving a part 
of the reduction plant, which was partially destroyed. For 
many years parts of the island have been disappearing. Twenty 
years ago a breakwater was built, and since then many boatloads 
of stone have been dumped off the eastern end to prevent under- 
mining by the currents. 

On April 26, 1907, a part of the eastern end containing the 
buildings of the reduction company's plant, and nearly two 
hundred feet of the pier and bulkhead sank without warning. 



356 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

These buildings contained the stock of oil or grease barrelled 
for market. A part of this was saved, but nothing of the struc- 
ture was recovered. The loss is stated at $50,000. The work- 
ing force of one hundred men was thrown into a panic, but 
they escaped without loss of life. 

In May, 1907, the buildings of the main plant were destroyed 
by fire supposed to have originated by spontaneous combustion. 
Serious damage was done to the digestor plant, and the works 
were put out of commission at a time when the warm season 
was approaching and the garbage was largest in amount. For 
nearly three months this waste was towed out to sea and dis- 
charged near Scotland Lightship. The winds and tides carried 
large amounts of it to the beaches of New Jersey, where it 
decayed under the hot sun and gave rise to complaints of nuis- 
ance all along the coast. Remonstrances were of no avail, and 
the matter was taken up by Governor Stokes, of New Jersey, 
who called with several prominent citizens upon Acting Mayor 
McGowan, and were assured by him that the dumping scows 
would be ordered twenty-five miles out to sea instead of fifteen 
as had been the custom. Assurance was also given that the 
reduction plant would soon be ready to resume work, although 
at first with only sufficient capacity to handle one-fourth of the 
total amount collected. 

During ten days street cleaners' strike of the summer of 
1907 such collections as were made consisted of a mixed mass 
of garbage, ashes, refuse, etc., which could not be treated at 
the reduction plant. This material was sent out to sea, and the 
same remonstrances were produced from the residents of the 
Jersey coast as on the previous occasion. These conditions 
were remedied in the same way, by sending the garbage scows 
literally out to sea instead of only forty miles from the city 
wharf. 

Continuation of the Garbage Disposal Contract. In 1902 the 
consolidation of the municipalities was made, and the city of 
Greater New York came into existence, divided into the bor- 
oughs of Manhattan (formerly New York City), Brooklyn, 
Queens (Long Island City, Jamaica, Flushing and Rockaway). 
Richmond (including five towns and all the territory of Staten 
Island), and Bronx (including Harlem). The population of 



THE DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY REDUCTION. 357 

the united boroughs was, in 1906, 4,258,387; the area in square 
miles, 327.25. 

The greater city assumed the collection and disposal of the 
garbage in Manhattan, Bronx and Brooklyn, leaving Queens 
and Richmond to deal with the problem in their own way. 

Near the close of 1901 after four years of work of the 
Street Cleaning Department the conditions of the service had 
become notoriously bad. An investigation set on foot by a 
committee of citizens, acting on behalf of a Civic Improvement 
League, brought out astonishing developments. 

One writer says of the work of the Department of Street 
Cleaning as administered by Commissioner Nagle : 

Beginning in 1898 with the inheritance of a well-organized and thor- 
oughly equipped service, with labor and money saving devices and ap- 
paratus in running order, with plans and purposes well-defined for carry- 
ing on a practical and successful line of work in an honest and economical 
way, now at the end of four years, as the result of incompetent manage- 
ment and complete surrender to the machine politicians, the Department 
is in a position of absolute contempt. 

Every one of the means established for saving time and money has 
been abandoned ; the pay-rolls are rilled with the names of political hench- 
men; the streets- are dirty and crowded with encumbrances; the steel 
dumping boards built for the Department have been sold for old junk; 
the refuse disposal station has been abandoned; the steam dumping boats 
have been thrown out and are rusting from disuse ; a corrupt combina- 
tion with individual contractors and corporations has been made, by which 
the city pays double prices for contract work; and the expenses are 
increased by more than one million dollars in four years. Some parts 
of the year's appropriations are even now exhausted, and still the demand 
is made for larger appropriations for next year. 

The election in November, 1901, again brought the city gov- 
ernment under the control of an administration pledged to the 
reform of all departments, and Dr. H. McGaw Woodbury be- 
came Commissioner of Street Cleaning in January, 1902. The 
contract granted in 1901 to the Sanitary Utilization Company 
was faithfully carri-ed out by both parties despite the many 
difficulties and reverses of the reduction company. 

On the announcement that tenders would be received for a 
new five years' contract for garbage disposal, competitors ap- 
peared. The specifications were issued for any suitable method, 
and time was allowed for the construction of an entirely new 



358 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

and complete plant. The bids received in August for a contract 
to begin in the following November were: 

Per Year 

The New York Sanitary Product Company (The Sanitary Utili- 
zation Company and Arnold Process) . . . $148,000 

The American Reduction Company (The Modified Flynn Pro- 
cess, of Pittsburg) 1 54,000 

Darlington & Co. (supposed to be a method of incineration) .... 209,000 

E. J. McKean (process unknown) 300,000 

The award was made to the New York Sanitary Product 
Company, upon an estimated basis of 800 tons per year; the 
price for disposal was about 90 cents, a reduction of 58 cents 
from the last contract price. 

In Brooklyn the garbage disposal contract was awarded to 
the Brooklyn Sanitary Product Company for five years from 
November, 1902. 

DISPOSAL IN BRONX BOROUGH. 

In the borough of the Bronx there was keen competition for 
the garbage disposal contract, as the conditions were favorable 
for the establishment of an incinerating plant, and the speci- 
fications provided for the erection of a suitable plant with a 
capacity of 100 tons of garbage and 100 cubic yards of refuse, 
other than ashes. 

The bids received were as follows: 

Per Year 

The Decarie Incinerating Company $16,000 

S. J. Subers 22,500 

M. J. Meagher 34,500 

Melrose Company 68,000 

Sanitary Utilization Company (if disposed of in the borough) .... 17, 500 

The same (if disposed of by their plant at Barren Island) 14,000 

The contract was awarded to the Decarie Company, which, 
after some opposition and some changes in regard to the pro- 
posed site, erected its plant and began the work of disposal.. 

The company met with difficulties from the first because of 
its inability to destroy the given quantity, and also because of 
complaints on the ground of nuisance from the chimney. 

The company was given time to remedy these defects, and 
after many changes in the apparatus again attempted to carry 
out the contract. A trial of about two months' time demonstrated 
that the incinerator could not perform the work required of it, 



THE DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY REDUCTION. 359 

and that the charge of the offensive odors was a true one. The 
contract was terminated by peremptory action of the Board of 
Estimate, based upon the adverse report of the Street Cleaning 
Commissioner, Dr. Woodbury, but the city did not insist upon 
the forfeiture of the bond given by the Decarie Company in the 
sum of $20,000 for the efficient performance of the contract. 

The mechanical equipment of the company was removed and 
used at another place to undergo a like failure and like discon- 
tinuance of its work. 

In 1908 the garbage of the borough of the Bronx was by 
five years contract with the Sanitary Utilization Company taken 
to the Barren Island plant at a cost to the city of $15,000 up 
to $25,000 per year, or an average of $19,000 per year for the 
five years' contract. At present, under this arrangement, the 
refuse is picked and sorted for market, the worthless rubbish is 
scowed to Riker's Island with the house and steam ashes, and is 
used for filling. 

THE GARBAGE OF THE BOROUGH OF QUEENS. 

Formerly in the towns of Long Island City, Flushing, 
Jamaica and Rockaway, all now included in the borough of 
Queens, the garbage was disposed of by tipping Upon the marshy 
grounds adjoining the towns. This became so objectionable that 
in 1899 Colonel Waring accepted bids for its disposal by five 
garbage crematories of the capacity of twenty-five tons each, tt> 
be located in these towns, also for one at New Brighton, in 
the borough of Richmond. 

The contract provided that the city was to collect and deliver 
the garbage; the contractor, Z. H. Magill, was to purchase 
ground and erect the crematories, receiving 45 cents per ton 
for the incineration of garbage with small amounts of light 
refuse. This undertaking was carried on for a short time only. 
The crematories were of the Dixon type, requiring large amounts 
of fuel, and the capacity was not up to the standard, the cost 
of operating greatly exceeded the guarantee, and the contractor 
lost heavily by the work. After nearly a year's effort the city 
was induced to purchase these plants, and a new administration 
paid $50,000 for the five crematories and the ground. 

The crematories in Flushing, Rockaway and Jamaica were 
discontinued, their places being taken by other furnaces of the 



360 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

La Chapelle make. That at Long Island City still continues at 
work, but that at New Brighton has been abandoned because 
of the erection of a modern destructor plant. 

At the present time a small part of the garbage of Queens 
is taken by scows to the Barren Island works, as is also a small 
quantity from Coney Island, the summer resort on the shores 
of the bay, immediately adjoining Barren Island. 

DISPOSAL OF GARBAGE IN THE BOROUGH OF RICHMOND. 

The borough of Richmond includes all of Staten Island; it 
has a population of 78,943, and an area of 57.25 square miles. 

Prior to the consolidation Staten Island was occupied by a 
number of corporate villages and a great many small hamlets, 
the latter controlled by the usual township and county system 
of government, the villages having a more definite form of 
administration by Trustees or a Board of Aldermen. 

One of the towns, called New Brighton, had in 1895 erected 
a garbage crematory of the Brownlee type, which continued in 
service for only three years. Complaints were made of noxious 
odors, and in the effort to abate these the work of the crematory 
became too expensive and it was abandoned early in 1898. 

In 1899 a Dixon crematory, built under the Magill contract, 
was located at Port Richmond, and after being acquired by the 
eity was operated until the spring of 1908, when replaced by a 
modern refuse destructor. For some time after the closing of 
the Brownlee furnace the garbage was removed in scows to 
Barren Island. 

Owing to the peculiar geographical conditions of the island 
a long narrow strip of settlements bordering on the waters of 
the Newark River, New York Harbor, and on the southern 
and eastern side of the great South Bay, the distance for trans- 
porting the garbage was entirely too great for its concentration 
at any one point. The attempt to deliver it to the Sanitary 
Company for reduction purposes was given up, and the several 
towns continued to deposit their garbage upon dumps. 

For four years after the new charter of the borough went 
into effect but little was done in the direction of improved dis- 
posal methods. In 1902 the Commissioner of Public Works, 
Mr. L. Tribus, C. E., with the assistance of Mr. Richard Fox, 



THE DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY REDUCTION. 361 

Chief of the Bureau of Street Cleaning, began the needed im- 
provements. Mr. Fox was in 1904 followed by Mr. J. T. 
Fetherston, C. E., as Chief of the Bureau, and the latter spent 
two years in a study of the local conditions and the establish- 
ment of a collection service and the necessary equipment. 

In 1906 Mr. Fetherston was authorized to investigate the 
garbage disposal methods in use in other countries, as well as in 
America and Canada, and went- abroad for that purpose. On 
his return, in the autumn of 1907, the borough authorities pro- 
ceeded with the plans recommended for the erection of an im- 
proved modern destructor plant that should receive about half 
of the mixed refuse of the borough and destroy it by incineration. 

The American Society of Civil Engineers published Mr. Fether- 
ston's report under the title "Municipal Refuse Disposal : An 
Investigation," together with papers discussing it by several mem- 
bers of the Society and others interested in the subject. (See 
Vol. LX., Transactions of the American Society of Civil En- 
gineers.) 

To ascertain the quantities and composition of the general 
refuse the collection made by the city carts in one district of the 
borough, West New Brighton was selected as a representative 
section of the whole territory. 

This district contained 4,321 houses, inhabited by 25,900 peo- 
ple, 90 per cent, of whom contribute waste for removal. In 
making observations there were noted: 

First, the quantity of mixed refuse for 1,000 inhabitants by volume and 
by weight. 

Second, the seasonal variations by volume and by weight. 

Third, the components of refuse, and variations according to the sea- 
sons. 

Fourth, the calorific value of refuse, both in separated parts and in 
general combination, according to the season. 

Fifth, the incineration of mixed refuse, together with the probable 
temperature of the gases resulting from the destruction of refuse, and 
the boiler power obtainable. 

The exhaustive study of the conditions above noted was pub- 
lished in the paper contributed to the discussion before the 
American Society of Civil Engineers, December, 1907. It is a 
most valuable contribution to the literature of the subject of 
municipal waste disposal and especially interesting to engineers 



362 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

investigating the question with view of undertaking similar 
studies. 

REPORT OF INSPECTION OF BRITISH DESTRUCTORS. 

Following the tabulated results of the preliminary examination 
of the conditions existing and probably to be encountered in the 
waste disposal of West New Brighton, it became necessary to 
determine by what method and with what apparatus the work 
should be done. During May and June, 1906, thirty-nine de- 
structor installations in Great Britain were inspected, and 
in August the only destructor of British type in this 
country, that at Westmount, Canada. Of the forty destruc- 
tors examined thirty were in England, three in Wales, three in 
Scotland, and one in Canada. Efforts were made to obtain data 
regarding the main factors in the work of mixed refuse disposal, 
so that the various features of each installation might be noted 
for comparison with others. 

The results of this comparison were tabulated in a series of 
extended notes, observations, opinions and deductions, giving a 
comprehensive survey of all the plants, with data for comparison 
in each case. The main points included a mention of the muni- 
cipality visited, its population and general character; estimates 
as to the quantity and character of the waste, the location, type 
and maker of plant ; its capacity ; its buildings ; the use made of 
the power derived ; construction costs and repairs ; special notes 
and opinions on operation, clinkers and ashes, and possible causes 
of nuisance; the most commendable and the most obviously ob- 
jectionable features, and general remarks. 

Following this the author discussed the more practical ques- 
tions that would concern the adoption of the destructor system 
at Richmond, and gives many figures and much general informa- 
tion bearing upon them. 

In the final deduction he sums up the commendable and ob- 
jectionable features in an impartially critical manner, bestowing 
praise and blame in about equal proportions. 

His recommendations were for the installation of a mixed 
refuse destructor at West New Brighton, and included the fol- 
lowing points : 

I. A hand-fed destructor charged at the back of the furnace and 
clinkering on the opposite side or front of the furnace. 



THE DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY REDUCTION. 363 

2. That refuse be stored in a bin or hopper with a door or curtain to 
contiol and prevent the escape of dust into the destructor room while 
the hopper is being filled. 

3. That refuse be dumped into the bin or hopper behind closed doors ; 
and that the refuse storage be separated from the destructor portion of 
the building. 

4. That heated air be required for the combustion of refuse. 

5. That a water-tube boiler be specified. 

6. That a steam-jet blowers, or fan-draft, or both, be provided so 
that the advantage of either may be determined. 

7. That the air for forced draft be drawn from the upper portion of 
the tipping-room and feeding or clinkering-room, so that positive ventila- 
tion may be secured. 

8. That the clinkering process be arranged so that hot clinker is 
dropped into a pit and the heat from the clinker is utilized in raising 
the temperature of the air for combustion. 

9. That ample working space, light, and air be provided in the building, 
and the plant be located so as to cause no trouble from escaping dust. 

10. That a suitable mess-room, bath and toilet-room be provided for 
the comfort of the men employed. 

11. That the exterior of the plant be made attractive in appearance. 

This whole investigation is by far the most thorough that has 
been conducted by any American engineer. The report contains 
much detailed information not previously accessible and the pre- 
liminary studies and experiments are of great value. Until this 
work was completed we never had a clearly defined analysis of 
municipal wastes, nor had any accurate survey and tabulation of 
relative quantities and seasonable variations been made. 

Mr. Fetherston has done the country a real service by this 
work, which is valuable not only in his own locality, but also for 
all American towns with anything like the same conditions. From 
this data any place can, by making necessary changes, calculate 
its own approximate quantities, with the relative composition 
of each item, and can then determine what will be the best way 
to proceed for its economical disposal. 

His observations as to the construction, working qualities and 
relative advantages and disadvantages of each type of destructor 
are expressed strongly and fearlessly, and evidently without bias, 
and with no other desire than to tell what appears to him to be 
the facts. 

The illustrations of British destructor plants add interest to 
the text, although they are not always happily chosen or quite 



364 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

successful in point of clearness of execution. The remaining 
papers discussing this report bring out no new features, most of 
the writers merely taking up one or another of the points already 
advanced by the first paper, with few original additions. 

The practical result of the investigation was the issuance of 
specifications calling for tenders for a refuse disposal station of 
sixty tons daily capacity, to be built of reinforced concrete 
throughout, chimney included, and to have most of the special 
features included in the recommendation. 

This advertisement appeared in August, 1907; the contract 
was made in September, the construction was completed in 
March, 1908, and the plant has been operating since that time. 
A complete description of this plant will be found under the 
heading of Destructors. 

ARNOLD PROCESS, BALTIMORE. 

The collection and disposal of waste in Baltimore, Md., up to 
1902, was by the usual primitive methods which obtained in the 
early days. The collections were made by a number of contrac- 
tors who took the greater part of the garbage to the wharf and 
sent it off in scows, but the remainder, with all the ashes and 
general refuse, was dumped in the city outskirts. In 1902 a 
movement w?s made towards better methods and the city adver- 
tised for bidders for a five-year contract for the collection and 
disposal of all the waste. It was found difficult to get satisfac- 
tory proposals, but a contract was finally awarded to the Balti- 
more Sanitary and Contracting Company, a local business cor- 
poration. The contract was for ten years from October 20, 1902 ; 
the price paid for garbage collection and disposal was to be 
$147,300 per year. 

The system of garbage disposal was the same Arnold process 
then in use in New York and Philadelphia, having the same 
general features of construction. The specifications of the city 
provided for certain points relating to the reduction process, as 
follows : 

The system of final disposition shall be through thorough sterilization 
of all material by the use of live steam at a temperature of 292 F., and it 
must be enclosed in steam-tight vessels at a pressure of 60 pounds for 
eight hours. All vapors and gases are to be drawn off and condensed. 

From the time that the material is delivered into the enclosed vessel it 
shall not be handled in the open air until after it has been pressed so 



THE DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY REDUCTION. 365 

that the solid parts of the material shall contain moisture not exceeding 
50 per cent., after which it may be destroyed by cremation, acidulation 
or reduction to commercial dryness for use as a fertilizing material. 

Later, in January, 1904, this same company acquired the contract for 
the collection of the ashes and rubbish for seven years at $54,500 per 
year, with an annual increase of $3,000 per year. 

The cost of the garbage plant was reported to be $250,000. 

The work performed under this contract was not satisfactory 
either to the contractors or to the city, and the contract was 
terminated in 1907, the city agreeing to purchase the plant and 
the equipment of the company for the sum of $372,888.19, pay- 
ments to be made in cash and notes for one, two, three and four 
years. 

The city then readvertised for bids, and after it had awarded 
the contract to one company it was declined. Subsequently satis- 
factory proposals were received from a new corporation. The 
Baltimore Products Company's bids were accepted, by which this 
company was to reduce the garbage for ten years for $45,000 
per year, to remove the garbage plant to Bear Creek, five miles 
from the city, and to purchase for $100,000 the buildings and 
machinery of the old company. A bond for $100,000 was re- 
quired for the performance of the contract. This company was 
also granted the contract for the collection and removal of ashes 
and refuse, the total sum for the disposal of all the waste being 
$587,000 per year^for ten years. 

Meanwhile, however, opposition to the proposed location de- 
veloped, and a bill was introduced in the Legislature prohibiting 
the site to be less than fifteen miles from the city. This distance 
was afterwards reduced to nine miles. These changes entailed 
greater cost, and a final proposal was made by the Baltimore 
Products Company to the effect that the price be increased to 
$52,000 the first year, for garbage disposal only; $58,000 for 
the second year, and $2,000 per year additional until the expira- 
tion of the contract in 1917. This proposal was accepted by the 
city and the new disposal works are now being erected. The 
Arnold-Edgerton reduction process is the method to be used. 

On January i, 1908, the city began the work of collection of 
ashes and rubbish by its own equipment and finds this more satis- 
factory than having this work done by contract. For 1907 the 
total number of loads removed of garbage was 81,319. 



366 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

ARNOLD PROCESS, PHILADELPHIA. 

The city of Philadelphia has for many years let yearly con- 
tracts for the collection and disposal of its waste. There is a 
peculiar provision, or an interpretation of the law, which pro- 
hibits a contract for a longer period than one year. This has 
undoubtedly retarded the adoption of improved means of dis- 
posal, as few contractors or companies would undertake the 
risk of constructing large disposal plants for the short time al- 
lowed for their assured employ.' On the other hand, this short- 
term contract at first brought keen competition for the work, so 
that presently the smaller contractors were eliminated, and the 
bidding was concentrated among half a dozen contracting firms 
who were provided with the capital and equipped with the teams 
for the proper performance of the service. 

Thus it happened that to-day the collection and disposal is in 
the hands of a few contractors who divide among themselves 
the five collection districts, and year after year secure the re- 
newal of contracts at practically their own figures. As a natural 
result the cost of this branch of city work has increased until at 
present the expense is relatively greater than in any other large 
city in the country. 

The garbage collection and disposal is a part of the yearly 
contract service. It was begun in 1894, when a company known 
as the American Product Company secured one street cleaning 
district, under competitive bidding, for the collection and dis- 
posal of garbage only. 

A plant was built on the Schuylkill River, near Gray's Ferry, 
about a quarter of a mile from any dwelling. The capacity of 
the plant was not great, as the garbage from one city collection 
district only was treated. In later years other districts were se- 
cured, and the capacity of the works increased. In 1902-3 the 
whole service of garbage collection and disposal for the city, 
except one small outlying district, was concentrated under the 
control of the American Product Company. The increased 
quantities handled, the better prices obtained for the service, the 
experience gained through improved methods and apparatus, to- 
gether with the advantages of large equipment for collection and 
disposal gave the corporation a decided pull against competitors 
for the yearly contract. 



THE DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY REDUCTION. 367 

The gradual increase in the cost to the city is shown by the 
following table : 

TABLE LXVI. THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF GARBAGE IN 
PHILADELPHIA, 1894 TO 1909. 

Collection Cost 

and Tons Per 

Year Company Disposal Ton 

1894 $294,879 

1895 295,140 

1896 289,000 /. 

1897 322,500 

1898 330,000 

1899 358,000 

1900 398,000 

/ Am. Pro. Co 448,000 224,256 $2.00 

1901 \ Am. Con. & Mfg. Co 333.800 252,238 

1902 Am. Product Co. . 440,833 280,000 

1903 488,830 

1904 516,700 300,000 

1905 560,000 340,000 



I" Jas. Curran $529,000 



1906 -j Am. Pro. Co. . 479,000 \ 479,000 

[ Penn. Red. Co 399-575 

1907 Penn. Red. Co 418,500 378.964 

1908 Penn, Red. Co 488,988 



This table includes the total cost for the garbage during the 
years named. Not all of this for all the years was destroyed 
by the reduction company. In 1894 the garbage was destroyed 
in a Vivarttas crematory in one district, and in 1894-5 still an- 
other portion of the garbage was burned in a Smith-Siemens 
crematory at Twenty-fourth and Callowhill Streets. Both these 
crematories were discontinued later, as the contracts for the col- 
lection and disposal were acquired by other contractors who em- 
ployed reduction methods. The Smith-Siemens furnace was 
later in temporary use, at a time when the reduction plant had 
been crippled by fire. 

The competition for the contracts of 1901 made no change as 
to the final results. The award to the American Contracting 
and Manufacturing Company at the lowest bid, $333,800, had 
been made, but after a struggle against adverse conditions and 
inadequate equipment the contract was surrendered to the Amer- 
ican Product Company at the bid of $448,000. 

In 1903 an offer by responsible parties to pay the city for the 
garbage collected and delivered at a plant to be built was received 
but not acted upon. 



368 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

After the bids were received in July, 1906, suit was brought 
by the American Product Company to restrain the Mayor and 
the Director of Public Safety from awarding the contract to 
the lowest bidder, the Penn Reduction Company. The judge in 
dismissing the suit said: "The plaintiffs' point is extremely nar- 
row and technical. They ask for the intervention of a court of 
equity to prevent the lowest bidder from getting a contract fairly 
won in competition." The performance of the contract awarded 
the Penn Reduction Company was begun by the erection of a 
large plant at a point removed 1,500 feet from any dwelling, but 
still within the city limits. Just as the works were ready to go 
into operation a fire destroyed the buildings, November i, 1906, 
and so crippled the company that they were obliged to surrender 
the contract, which was then taken over by the American Product 
Company at the price they had bid, $479,000. 

The figures paid for this work in the years noted show a con- 
tinuously increasing cost. In 1905 this cost was more than double 
that of the first year reported, the exact ratio of increase being 
53 per cent. 

The system of garbage collection and disposal as carried on 
in Philadelphia affords a very good illustration of the working 
of the short-term contract service, with a limited period of ad- 
vertising in advance for the construction of a new plant, and 
the certainty of competition by a powerful company which has 
for years enjoyed a monopoly through the favor of the local 
authorities. 

The American Product Company is the parent company of 
those that control the Arnold process. The first plant built in 
1894 was in most respects similar to that built in Boston from 
the designs of the same engineer, Mr. Charles Edgerton. There 
is a somewhat confusing use of corporate names in this connec- 
tion, which makes it difficult to distinguish the different organi- 
zations. 

The Philadelphia Company actually doing the work was called 
the Philadelphia Sanitary Utilization Company, and its personnel 
included several of the prominent contractors and politicians of 
the city. The New York Sanitary Utilization Company, the 
Brooklyn Sanitary Product Company and the Boston Sanitary 
Product Company are all operating under the processes of tfie 



THE DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY REDUCTION. 369 

parent company in Philadelphia. This is believed to be also the 
case in Newark, Baltimore and Atlantic City. 

ASHES AND REFUSE OF PHILADELPHIA. 

These portions of the municipal waste are separately collected 
from five different districts by contractors who bid under one- 
year terms. Here again the work appears to be so divided that 
it goes year after year to the same parties at constantly increas- 
ing rates. The contracts include the street cleaning and sweep- 
ing, the removal of all household waste except garbage, and the 
cleaning of all private alleys and paved streets once a week. 
The cost of the work has steadily increased from $462,394 in 
1894 to $529,889 in 1900, and $720,890 in 1902. 

From a personal examination made in 1902 it was ascertained 
that there were approximately 823,977 tone of total waste, of 
which garbage was 280,000 tons ; ashes and refuse 529,889 tons. 
The proportion of refuse was approximately 30,000 loads, or 
15,000 tons. All this is dumped on low grounds below and on 
the outskirts of the city. These dumps are picked over by 
persons in the employ of the contractors who control the collec- 
tion service and who recover from 30 to 40 per cent, of the light 
refuse for market. This refuse is roughly baled on the grounds, 
but much of it is in filthy and insanitary condition. 

In one year there were six hundred complaints from property- 
holders adjoining one refuse dump at North Broad Street and 
Hunting Avenue. No relief was possible, as the Health Depart- 
ment held that the dumps did not contain organic substances that 
would by decay become injurious to health. 

The contractor at this dump received pay from all cartmen 
who picked out and recovered for market a large proportion of 
refuse by the labor of women and children. His only expense 
was to deposit two feet of earth upon the miscellaneous debris 
brought to the ground, which assisted in the preparation of the 
soil as a site for dwellings to be built thereafter. The insanitary 
conditions attending the work, the complaints of neighbors, and 
the inevitable spread of zymotic diseases that flourish under just 
such conditions were not the concern .of the contractor, nor evi- 
dently of the health department of the city of Philadelphia. 



37 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 
ARNOLD REDUCTION PROCESS, ATLANTIC CITY. 

The question of garbage collection and disposal at Atlantic City 
has always been a most perplexing problem for several reasons. 
The population is variable roughly, from 35,000 resident per- 
sons at one period up to 150,000 during the crowded summer 
months. There is no chance for disposal by tipping overboard, 
nor are the facilities for feeding swine available as in other 
places. A summer and winter watering place must be clean, and, 
above all, must be sanitary, for the whole life of a town depends 
upon its sanitary and attractive features. 

For many years the waste was taken away from the water 
front and tipped or buried. Then in 1894-5 the Smith-Siemens 
crematory was erected, and for about five years destroyed the 
garbage at great cost for fuel and labor. The quantity thus dis- 
posed of in 1902 was 10,000 tons disposed of by artificial gas 
as fuel at a cost of $1.52 per ton. 

In 1903 the city made a contract with the Atlantic Product Com- 
pany, a Philadelphia corporation, of which Dr. F. H. McFarland 
was president, to collect and dispose of the garbage for a period 
of ten years. The company was to receive $20,000 per year for 
collection and $20,000 per year for disposal, with an annual in- 
crease of $1,000 per year. In 1906 the amount paid for both was 
$43,000. 

The plant is located at the north end of the island near the 
inlet, adjoining the abandoned incinerating plant. The buildings 
occupy an area of 100x150 feet, and are said to have cost 
$125,000. In general arrangement and methods of operation the 
works are similar to Philadelphia, though some more improve- 
ments have been made over the older forms of machinery. There 
are twenty digesters in five groups, with five hydraulic presses, 
the usual catch-basins, gutters and flotation tanks for separating 
the grease from the water. The gases are condensed and passed 
over the boiler fires. The steam power is maintained by burning 
the tankage for fuel. The capacity of the plant is necessarily 
larger than the average because of the maximum population of 
the city for short periods. 

Probably the total for the year would not exceed 20,000 
tons, but on occasion there might be 150 tons per day for treat- 



THE DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY REDUCTION. 371 

ment. There are no accounts or reports of quantities or per- 
centage of manufactured products. 

THE ARNOLD PROCESS, NEWARK, N. J. 

For many years the disposal of the waste of Newark had been 
made by tipping upon the marshy lands surrounding the city 
on three sides. A part of the organic waste was fed to the 
swine, collected by private contractors, and a still smaller part 
was taken outside of the city limits for ground burial. 

In July, 1902, the city received tenders for the collection and 
disposal of all waste matters for a term of five years. It was 
provided that garbage should be disposed of by any means which 
would be inodorous and sanitary; that ashes and rubbish should 
be dumped at any place subject to the approval of the Board of 
Works. 

The bids received for this work were from six different con- 
tractors and companies, ranging from $631,000 to $817,000 for 
the five years' contract. The contract was finally awarded to the 
highest bidder, Mr. Benjamin Meyer, who afterwards organized 
a company called the Newark Reduction Company, and erected 
plants under the Arnold process at a location in the rear of the 
city on the banks of the river. The reduction works were built 
under the Edgerton patents for rotary presses, and were in other 
respects similar to the reduction plants of the Arnold process at 
other places. 

During the term of this contract the plant also disposed of 
garbage from adjacent towns Orange, East Orange and Harri- 
son which was brought by wagons from these places. Upon 
the expiration of this contract in 1908, bids were called for by 
the city and the award again made to the same company for 
another term of five years. 

WILMINGTON, DEL. 

Wilmington, Del., was among the first to adopt improved 
methods for disposal of its garbage, and in 1893 erected a gar- 
bage incinerator under the S. G. Brown patents. This was the 
first water-jacketed furnace to be erected in this country, was 
operated by oil, sprayed by steam, which was furnished by a 
boiler independent of the plant. 



37 2 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

This crematory continued at work for some three or four 
years, and was finally put out of commission because of the great 
expense of operating. It was followed by a Dixon crematory of 
approximately fifty tons capacity, erected on the same ground. 
The operation of this crematory was found to be expensive be- 
cause of the large amounts of liquid contained in the garbage and 
the fact that this was separately collected without any admixture 
of refuse and brought to the crematory for disposal. Various 
methods of extracting these liquids were devised, but none found 
to be of practical service. 

In April, 1906, the city advertised for bids for the disposal of 
the garbage under conditions which required the contractor to 
dispose of it in a sanitary manner, and he should also be allowed 
the use of the present city crematory and make such alterations 
therein as should be approved by the Council. 

The plant was required to have capacity for the disposal of all 
garbage within twenty-four hours after collection. The Mayor 
and Council should have the option to purchase the plant at the 
termination of the five-year contract. This contract was awarded 
to a company formed for the purpose, which company employed 
the Arnold process, and which also had the privilege of burning 
the rubbish in a part of the Dixon crematory which was specially 
altered for the purpose. There is no report showing the quantity 
treated or the results of the work at the present time. 

The company engaged to dispose of the rubbish as well as the 
garbage, and conduct their work on the same ground and include 
in their plant the operation of the Dixon Crematory. 



CHAPTER XVI. 

THE CHAMBERLAIN, HOLTHAUS, WISEOGEL, AMERICAN RE- 
DUCTION AND PENN REDUCTION PROCESSES. 
CHAMBERLAIN PROCESS, DETROIT, MICH. 

This process, known as the "Liquid Separating Process," was 
first used at Detroit, Mich., in 1898. The patentee and inventor 
was Mr. M. H. Chamberlain, who was President of the Detroit 
Liquid Separating Company, contracting with the city for all 
garbage disposal for a term of five years. 

The collection was made in large boxes holding one and 
one-half tons each, and brought from all parts of the city to 
a yard adjoining the railroad station. The boxes were lifted 
from the cart bodies and placed on flat cars, each holding 
20 boxes, and carried 22 miles on the Wabash Railroad to 
French's Landing on the Huron River. At the works the boxes 
were discharged upon a platform, the refuse picked out and 
the garbage shoveled into digesters of the usual capacity of 
five tons. The bottoms of these digesters were provided with 
three concentric circular cylinders with double walls closed on 
the top but open on the bottom, with perforated sides. 

After the usual process of cooking from six to eight hours, 
steam at high pressure was forced into the tank above and 
below the cylinders, forcing these upward and driving out the 
liquids carrying the grease, which passed off through pipes con- 
nected with the lower section of the digesters. This pressure 
was Continued for five hours, until the liquids were squeezed out, 
leaving about 30 per cent, of the original mass, which was then 
removed through the side doors and conveyed to steam-jacketed 
driers. At the close of this drying process the bulk of the 
material was reduced to 15 per cent, of the original measure, and 
was in the form of a homogeneous brown mass, which was 
screened and ground for fertilizer. 

The pressed-out water and grease are separated, the grease 
collected and barreled, and the water run off into the Huron 

373 



374 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

River as a dark brown effluent that rapidly colors the water of 
the river. The special features of this process are the collec- 
tions in closed tanks and transportation to the works without 
breaking bulk, steamed garbage in the digesters, and the separa- 
tion of water and grease within closed tanks, the steam and 
gases from which were condensed or destroyed by discharge 
under the ash-pits of the boilers. There has never been avail- 
able any analysis of the products from this process, and no 
comparison of the value can be stated. 

This company was the first to use the system of collection 
in large movable boxes tightly sealed for transportation by rail. 
The compensation paid to the company was at the rate of 
$47,208 per year, which included transportation by rail to the 
works. No information in regard to quantities is available. 

After the close of the contract the city advertised in December, 
1905, for new bids for disposal. 

Those received were as follows : 

Dixon Sanitary Crematory Company, four 8-ton plants $80,000 

Detroit Sanitary Works offered to sell their plant, 200 tons 

capacity, for 100,000 

Lewis & Kitchen, garbage crematory plants; submitted seven 

bids, highest 68,879 

These bids were all rejected, and the city advertised again 
on December 23, 1905, when the following proposals were re- 
ceived : 

Detroit Sanitary Works, 10 years' contract, $12,000 per year. 

Detroit Reduction Company, 10 years' contract for no compensation, for 
garbage only ; also to dispose of all other refuse at 25 cents per ton, and to 
dispose of ashes at 20 cents per ton, and night soil at 25 cents per barrel. 

The Detroit Reduction Company also offered to sell to the 
city at any time, on valuation. 

At this time (Oct., 1908) the city collects the garbage, about 
35,000 tons per year, and delivers it to the Detroit Reduction Com- 
pany at a central point in the city. The company sends it by rail 
to the works at French's Landing twenty miles outside the city. 
The contract is for ten years from July, 1905. 

CHAMBERLAIN PROCESS, INDIANAPOLIS, IND. 
The Chamberlain, or "Liquid Separating Process," of reduc- 
tion was introduced into Indianapolis in 1898. A contract for 
collection and disposal of garbage and dead animals was secured 



THE DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY REDUCTION. 375 

by the Indianapolis Sanitary Company, Mr. S. E. Rand, 
President. 

The works were built on a farm just outside the city, the 
collections made in steel tanks, or wagon bodies, which were 
taken by rail from the central station to the plant. The process 
of disposal was the same as at the Detroit works, but instead 
of running off the foul effluent direct into the river it was 
heated to a high temperature and discharged on the gravel beds 
of the river banks, through which it found its way to the 
water. 

This manner of effluent disposal gave rise to bitter and un- 
ceasing complaints from adjoining property-holders, and in later 
years the company has taken other means for the treatment of 
the liquids. 

In 1905 the city advertised for bids for a five-year contract 
for the collection and disposal of garbage and dead animals. 

The bids received were: 

Per Year 

C. Jones (Buffalo) $48,800 

F. J. Edengarter 60,360 

Indianapolis Sanitary Company 52,000 

The last-named received the award. It is understood that 
the work is being carried on at the same plant and by the same 
methods as before. No reports of quantities or value of prod- 
ucts are available. 

Assuming the population to be 212,198 in 1905, and the 
quantity of garbage as estimated in the tables of the Govern- 
ment Census Reports as 30,000 tons, the cost of collection and 
disposal would be at the rate of $1.73 per ton, and at the rate 
of 25 cents per capita per annum. This does not include the 
ashes and refuse, for which a separate contract is made. No 
reports of these amounts can be obtained. 

CHAMBERLAIN PROCESS, CINCINNATI, OHIO. 

As previously noted, this city had in service for ten years the 
Simonin process of reduction for vegetable garbage and a con- 
tract with a separate company for the collection and disposal 
of the "animal garbage." 

In 1902, when the city advertised for bids for the combined 
work of garbage disposal and animal collections and disposal, 



376 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

the bid of Messrs. M. H. Chamberlain and J. H. Corliss, after- 
wards known as the Cincinnati Reduction Company, was ac- 
cepted for the fractional parts of the years for the two com- 
panies then performing the service. These bids were on a slid- 
ing scale of payment: 1902, part of year, $43,000; 1903, 
$76,000; 1904, $77,500; 1905, $78,500; 1906, $80,400; 1907, 
part of year, $35,000. The company was to make collections 
three times a week from residential parts of the city during 
April to October and twice a week in other months, with daily 
collections for markets, hotels and all places where animal food 
is prepared. 

The company provided iron water-tight wagon bodies to be 
lifted by cranes to cars for transportation to the disposal works 
a few miles down the river. 

The "liquid separation" or Chamberlain process is the one 
under which this company operates, the works and buildings 
being of the same general design and character as the Detroit 
plant, previously described. No reports of the exact quantities 
received or the value of the product have ever been obtained. 

On the expiration of the contract, the city advertised for bids 
for five years and received and accepted proposals from the 
same company, the Cincinnati Reduction Company, at the fol- 
lowing terms: First year, $80,000; second year, $91,000; third 
year, $93,000; fourth year, $95,000; fifth year, $97,000, con- 
tract to begin June I, 1908. 

MERZ REDUCTION PROCESS FOLLOWED BY CHAMBERLAIN RE- 
DUCTION PROCESS, WASHINGTON, D. C. 

The generally unsettled state of the refuse disposal problem 
is well illustrated by the experiences of the Capital City in 
this line of municipal work during the past decade. Seventeen 
year ago the swill was collected in wooden barrels, in an irregu- 
lar, unsatisfactory way, by the contract service. This was an- 
nulled for breach of contract, and for some months the work 
was done by the municipality at an increased cost, but with 
greater efficiency. 

In 1891, under the terms of a new contract, the work was 
better done, the disposal being beyond the limits of the Dis- 
trict of Columbia, being at least in theory deposited by 



THE DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY REDUCTION. 377 

the contractor on farm land along the Potomac River, although 
grave insinuations were made as to the dumping of the material 
into the river as soon as the boundary of the District had been 
passed. 

In 1892 a special appropriation enabled the Commissioner^ 
to secure the removal of all garbage in inclosed tanks, and a 
contract was made with a company for its disposal by reduc- 
tion. This was the Merz reduction system, the plant for the 
work being built in one of the remote and sparsely settled sec- 
tions of the city. 

The usual complaints were received, and a bitter controversy 
arose, which was settled by the accidental destruction of the 
building by fire. No attempt was made to rebuild, and the 
reduction company soon went into the hands of a receiver, who 
conducted the business for a short time, and finally sold it to one 
of the members of the company. 

The service rendered was extremely unsatisfactory to the 
city, and, it was alleged, unprofitable to the company, because 
of the inability of the Commissioners to enforce separation by 
the householders. 

This condition of affairs terminated in March, 1895, when 
an appropriation of $60,000 was made, and strict regulations 
as to the collection and sanitary treatment of the waste were 
authorized and made a part of the city specifications calling for 
new proposals, so as to bind the contractor, and were promul- 
gated as public regulations so as to bind the householder. Each 
bidder was permitted to select his own means of proposed dis- 
posal. The city accepted a bid for disposal by incineration, by 
which the contractor was to erect two crematory furnaces in 
different parts of the city. 

A Brown crematory was chosen by the contractor as one of 
the means of disposal, and a Smith-Siemens crematory selected 
by the Commissioners as the other. Upon trial of these two 
furnaces it was found that the Brown plant could dispose of 
far less than the quantity for which it was designed, not more 
than 40 per cent, of the daily output of garbage during the 
summer months. 

In constructing the Smith-Siemens crematory, an attempt 
was made to do away with certain objectionable features that 



378 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

attended the former work of this furnace in other cities. Whether 
from changes incident to these, or for other reasons, the furnace 
built in Washington was not a success. It ran for a time on trial, 
but gave rise to so many complaints based on odors emanating 
from it, that, although it had been selected by the Commissioners 
in the first instance, it was never accepted by them, and never 
regularly went into service. Moreover, during its experimental 
runs it never approximated its estimated capacity. 

The contract was modified so as to permit the contractor to 
carry all the garbage and dead animals down the river on scows, 
and dispose of them in the same primitive manner which had been 
followed under the preceding cheaper contract. 

Early in 1900 efforts were made to obtain a better means for 
the disposal of all the city waste, and bids were invited for the 
collection and disposal of garbage, dead animals, night soil and 
miscellaneous refuse and ashes for a period of five years. 

Proposals were received from responsible parties, the lowest 
of these being at the rate of $115,000 per year. Congress refused 
to authorize the contract, and requested new specifications and 
new bidding. When the new specifications were received, in 
June, 1900, separate contracts were awarded, as follows: 

Contract with the Washington Fertilizer Company, for five 
years, for collection and disposal of garbage and dead animals for 
$51,600 per year, and $1,000 additional yearly for any extension 
of the service, but with a deduction of 50 cents per ton on all 
over 20,000 tons collected during the year. This company em- 
ployed the method of the Chamberlain or "Liquid Separating 
Process" which was then in use in Cleveland. 

Contract for the collection and disposal of ashes, five years, for 
$29,979 per year ; for the collection and disposal of miscellaneous 
refuse, five years, $8,000 per year, and for the collection and dis- 
posal of night-soil for $17,000 per year. 

These figures represent a per capita expense for each class as 
follows : 

Garbage $0.173 

Ashes 10 

Refuse 027 

Night soil. 057 

No statement of quantities per ton could be made with regard 
to the various classes of waste, except garbage that was esti- 



THE DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY REDUCTION. 379 

mated in 1900 at 24,339 tons, with 12,170 dead animals and 
6,157 barrels of night-soil. The population of the city for that 
year was 278,577. 

The five-year contract with the Washington Fertilizer Company 
expired November 30, 1905. In July, 1905, a new contract for 
collection and disposal of garbage only was made with the same 
company. New contracts for the disposal of every class of 
waste were also made in each case for five years. 

The expenditures for collection and disposal of city refuse 
are as follows, for 1906 : 

Garbage and animals $60,423 . 06 

Dead animals 1,3 25. 13 

Ashes 51, 13 7. 15 

Refuse 1 5,488 . 67 

Night soil 16,470.00 

Incidental expenses 690 . 10 

Total... $145,554.68 

In 1906 the cost of this work was at the rate of 

$1.54 per ton for garbage. 
.41 cubic yard for ashes. 

.72 ' bbl. for night-soil. 

136 ' ton for refuse, assuming weight of 211,512 bags of paper 
at 150 Ibs. each. 

The population of the city in 1906 was 302,855. 
The expense per capita per annum for the year 1906 for the 
whole waste collection and disposal service was 48 cents. 

HOLTHAUS REDUCTION PROCESS, BRIDGEPORT, CONN. 

For years the disposal of garbage in Bridgeport was accom- 
plished by buying in the vacant ground on the Town Farm. 
Long trenches were dug, the loads of garbage dumped as col- 
lected, and the earth thrown back over it. This method has often 
caused complaint, but as a rule has been persisted in. When 
complaints became too pressing the Health Department made 
inspection and ordered four inches of earth to be placed over the 
trenches. The burying process is somewhat intermittent, being 
governed by the necessity for immediate disposal when the gar- 
bage reduction plant breaks down or burns up, a frequent episode 
in the history of their disposal works. What will happen when 
this ground is needed for building purposes in future years is 
a problem that the health authorities will have to solve. 



380 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

Bridgeport for many years enjoyed the proud position of pay- 
ing the largest sum annually of any American town for the col- 
lection of its garbage. 

A contract for ten years was granted to Mr. J. D. Twohey, 
at a price of something like $2.60 per ton, the weight to be 
taken on the city scales at the entrance to the Town Farm before 
burial. A casual examination made in 1906 by reporters for the 
newspapers revealed the fact that a very considerable percentage 
of the garbage was water. The collection contract was again 
granted to Reilly & King for five years from November 8, 1905, 
at a cost to the city of $2.32 per ton. 

A Dixon crematory was built in 1899, and operated for some 
time, until the expense of burning very wet swill became too 
burdensome. 

This town was one of the first to experiment with reduction 
methods, having in about 1887 a plant of the Holthaus extraction 
system. This method used naphtha in the first stages for extract- 
ing the grease, in a manner similar to the Simonin process, 
although the digesters were of smaller capacity and were vertical 
in position instead of horizontal. The subsequent stages of the 
separation of the naphtha from the water, recovering the grease 
and drying the tankage were like those in other plants, but the 
machinery and equipment was of its kind more scientifically 
built and better arranged, and the whole plant was better con- 
structed. 

There is no available knowledge of the exact conditions of 
the contract with the city, but it is believed that about 34 cents 
per ton was paid to the company, the delivery of separated 
garbage being made by the city. At the time of the Waring 
inspection of reduction plants it was put under a month's trial 
by one of the Commissioner's staff, and was very favorably re- 
ported upon for its cleanliness and general good performance. 
But an explosion of the naphtha fumes wrecked the plant, and 
fire followed, which completed the almost total destruction of 
the buildings and equipment, and the city turned again to the 
town burial ground for the disposal of the refuse. 

In about 1900 the work of garbage disposal was taken up by 
Mr. Geo. E. Winton, who had an abattoir and rendering plant, 
and who received 50 cents a ton for garbage disposed of. His 



THE DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY REDUCTION. 381 

plant also took fire and was partly destroyed, and the Dixon 
crematory was again brought into service. Mr. Winton resumed 
operations, which for some years were carried on with consider- 
able friction, several competitors claiming that they could offer 
better methods and all making efforts to secure the contract. 

In 1907, when new contracts were to be let, strong competi- 
tion was encountered, the contract for ten years finally going 
to the American Abattoir and Oil Company, one that had pre- 
viously had the same contract. The works of this company are 
within the city limits, on the line of a trunk sewer. Serious 
charges of nuisance were made in the summer of 1907, which 
resulted in the temporary shut-down of the plant, until the 
sewers, which the company claimed were too small, could be 
rebuilt with sufficient capacity to carry away the water dis- 
charged from the works. 

A proposition has been made by the company to take the 
garbage of New Haven and several towns in the Naugatuck 
Valley for treatment. The plant of the company is believed to 
be a modification of the Holthaus method, but no accurate details 
can be had, as visitors are not allowed on the premises. The 
quantities of garbage handled are also very indefinitely known, 
as the records are not obtainable and no replies are made to 
repeated requests concerning the operation of the plant. The 
payment by the city is 50 cents per ton for disposal. 

HOLTHAUS PROCESS, SYRACUSE, N. Y. 

Up to 1899 this city made disposition of its waste by the usual 
primitive and unsanitary methods employed in the early history 
of American towns. The advertisement for disposal by incinera- 
tion in 1898 produced no satisfactory results, and in the follow- 
ing year a contract was let to the Syracuse Reduction Company 
for the garbage disposal at $26,000 per year for ten years. At 
that time the quantity of garbage was estimated at 10,000 tons, 
which made the cost of disposal $2.60 per ton, the largest price 
paid by any city in the country for any form of reduction, extrac- 
tion methods. 

This contract expiring in July, 1908, on May 10 the city 
issued specifications for bids for disposing of the garbage and 



382 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

dead animals in a sanitary manner for five years from July i, 
1908. These specifications provide: 

The contractor to erect his plant on location to be approved of by 
Board of Public Works. 

The quantities of garbage were : 1904, 8,279 tons ; 1905, 9,257 tons ; 1906, 
9,285 tons; 1907, 10,624 tons. 

The system or process must have been in use for two years preceding 
date of bid. 

Pending time of completion of plant, contractor will be permitted to 
dispose of garbage and animals by burial. 

This also to be permitted in case of temporary suspension of plant. The 
plant to be designed in units to permit cleaning or repairs with no inter- 
ruption of work. 

The disposal to be innocuous and without nuisance, all liquids to be 
evaporated and gases passed through fire. 

Large dead animals to be collected by contractor. 

City to purchase plant on expiration of contract on six months' notice. 

The bids received under these specifications were : 

Syracuse Reduction Company (present contractors) $17,000 

Municipal Contracting Company 14,989 

Albert Gaffey 18,896 

H. Bromner 24,000 

These bids were rejected as being too high and new specifica- 
tions, on same terms, except that the bids will be for periods 
of 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 years, the plant to be retained by the 
contractor, at the expiration of contractor's term. The alterna- 
tive proposition is identical, except that the transfer of the plant 
to the city at the end of contract term will be made without 
cost to the city. 

The award of the contract to the Syracuse Reduction Com- 
pany for ten years was finally made, at $13,975 per year for 
disposal only. 

The original Holthaus system, as operated at the Syracuse 
plant, is thus described by an observer in 1900: 

The garbage is collected in barrels and from these is dumped into a 
car on an elevator which carried it to the top of the building. The car 
is dumped into the digester with 30 per cent, of water added and the 
garbage digested by steam in the usual manner. 

The digesters arranged in groups of four, discharge into a press, where 
the water and grease is pressed out and allowed to run into the separating 
tank, from which the grease is drawn .off and barreled. 

The tankage falls into the dryers below, and after passing these is 
carried up to the second floor, where it is ground and screened. 

The whole process from the time the garbage is put into the digesters 
till the dry tankage and grease appear, is conducted in apparatus which is 
securely closed. 



THE DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY REDUCTION. 383 

Pipes lead from the different parts of the apparatus to a vacuum pump 
which draws off all gases through a condenser and then passes them 
through the fire. All water vapors from the drying and rendering process 
is condensed and all water evaporated and then condensed so that all 
liquid wastes from the works are free from offense. 

In this description there is no mention of the use of naphtha 
at any stage of the work, and this appears to be a departure from 
the first plant at Bridgeport, which employed naphtha for ex- 
tracting the grease after maceration of the garbage by steam. 
The present Syracuse plant has undergone many changes and 
improvements that have made the work less expensive and more 
sanitary. 

A fire destroyed a part of the buildings in January, 1903. 

THE HOLTHAUS PROCESS, NEW BEDFORD, MASS. 

One of the earliest municipal reduction processes was that 
of the Holthaus system in New Bedford, Mass., about 1893-94. 
The city had contracted with a private company for a five-year 
term for the garbage collection and disposal. The corporation 
was formed by local investors, headed by Mr. James Gannon, 
the contractor who had previously held the contract for collec- 
tion of the garbage. The works of the company were placed 
at a point just within the city limits, about three miles from the 
City Hall. These were much the same construction as the first 
plant of this system at Bridgeport, and included the use of 
naphtha for extracting the grease from the tankage after previous 
boiling. 

At that time the reduction methods were not well understood. 
The difficulties encountered, together with the continuous com- 
plaints of nuisance, and the small price paid for the work made 
the venture unprofitable. 

An explosion and fire partly destroyed the plant, which was 
not rebuilt. After about three years of unsuccessful effort, 
the contract was given up and the city continued the primitive 
means of disposal by tipping and feeding swine. 

But little is known of the details of this plant, but it was 
presumed to have followed the same methods of construction 
and working as the first plant of the Holthaus system at Bridge- 
port. 



384 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

WlSELOGEL PROCESS, VlNCENNES, IND. 

The work of Mr. Frederick G. Wiselogel covers a long period 
of time and connection with many forms of apparatus for treat- 
ment of waste matter. He installed the Simonin process for ex- 
traction of grease by naphtha from abattoir tankage, in 1872, at 
Chicago, and was connected, as engineer, with several fertilizer 
companies up to 1887, when he joined the Merz company, as 
chief construction engineer in the mechanical department of the 
works at Buffalo. In 1889, he built the Merz plants at Denver, 
and subsequently the works at Paterson, Detroit, Milwaukee and 
St. Paul. In 1891 he installed the first plant for the St. Louis 
Sanitary Company, followed in 1892 by the plant at Bartels, near 
Milwaukee, and in 1893, the second installation of the St. Louis 
plant. 

The Wiselogel reduction process or system probably came 
first into use at Indianapolis. The first plant at this place did 
not continue, and was subsequently replaced by the Chamberlain 
liquid separating process, then used in Detroit. The plant at 
Indianapolis was popularly known as a "Wiselogel/' but how 
far this was due to the methods of Mr. Wiselogel, and what 
part was done by the methods of Mr. Chamberlain is uncertain 
and of little interest. The first distinctive installation of the 
Wiselogel system was at Vincennes, Ind., in 1902. 

The Star Tankage and Fertilizer Works obtained the contract 
from the town for reduction of its garbage and erected a plant at 
an approximate cost of $30,000. 

The apparatus is thus described by the secretary of the com- 
pany subsequently organized in Boston: 

In further consideration of your valued favor of the i6th inst., we 
take pleasure in submitting the following facts regarding the "Wiselogel 
System" for the disposal of municipal waste. 

The chief claims of our system of reduction, as applied to garbage, over 
that of any other, are that it is ECONOMICAL, AUTOMATIC and 
ODORLESS. 

Our apparatus consists of a self-contained, rendering tank and dryer 
combined. It is a steam-jacketed cylinder of cast iron, 5 feet internal 
diameter and 12 or more feet long, provided with a shaft and reel to 
stir the mass within. The material to be reduced is fed in at the 
top of the tank to which an air or vacuum pump is attached, and, being 
constantly in motion produces an inward draft while the tank is open, 
thus preventing any odors from escaping. 



THE DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY REDUCTION. 385 

When the tank is filled, the door is closed and clamped, steam is 
admitted and the reel is set in motion, the air pump and condenser still 
being in operation. The water, together with the grease, assembles in 
the bottom of the machine, and is pumped into the cooling tank, where 
the grease is drawn off into barrels and is ready for market. The water 
is led off as a harmless effluent into the sewer. Relieved of the water 
and grease, the residuum is dried in this same machine, and during the 
entire process, by the aid of the vacuum pump, all vapors and gases are 
drawn from the machine and forced through a condenser and separator, 
where the vapors are condensed and the gases diverted to a specially 
constructed consumer. When the residuum or tankage is thoroughly 
dried, it is discharged from the machine a commercial fertilizer. This 
whole operation consumes about eight hours' time. 

The material suffers no exposure from the time it is fed in at the 
top until it is discharged a dry and odorless product, ready for shipment. 

The buildings of the plants under this system are usually two stories 
in height, constructed of any good building material, upper and lower 
floors of concrete faced with best cement, sloping toward the center 
and "splashed" up at the sides, posts, etc., at least six inches, so that 
they can at all times be kept scrupulously clean with soap and water. The 
machines are set in the basement, the feed pipes extending through the 
second floor. All the material to be reduced is brought up an inclined 
driveway and discharged into the tank, as above described. 

This system being composed of units of reduction, each tank repre- 
senting a unit and holding about 10,000 pounds of wet garbage per 
charge, it is but a matter of more machines for a twenty- or thirty-ton 
plant. The same number of men, engine and boiler, with but little more 
fuel, will operate six machines as well as one. 

Our new combination tank and dryer, supplied with an extra large 
vacuum pump and condenser, placed in the basement or outhouse of 
a large hotel or apartment house, i> fully guaranteed to reduce all swill, 
table and kitchen refuse, and so do away with the nuisance of garbage 
cans, flies, bad odors and the inconvenience, and annoyance attending the 
removal of cans. 

We also make a machine for the sanitary disposal of night-soil, which 
is operated under vacuum, all gases and vapors being conducted as 
described above in our combination machine. 

, One plant at Jacksonville, Fla., is equipped with such a machine as 
above described called our Economy No. 2. The Star Tankage and Fer- 
tilizer Works of Vincennes, Ind., built in 1902, is also operating under 
our patents, having our separate digester and dryer and is unqualifiedly 
endorsed by them. 

The capacity of this first Wiselogel plant at Vincennes has 
never been known. As the town, with a population in 1903 of 
10,669, could not at best have produced over five or six tons of 



386 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

garbage per day, it seems probable that only one dryer unit of 
five tons capacity was used. 

The difference between the Wiselogel system and that of the 
Merz process is in the form of the digester, which in this case 
is a cylinder, steam-jacketed and placed horizontally, instead of 
vertically, and has a specially powerful cross-armed stirrer for 
thoroughly breaking up and macerating the contents. The sub- 
sequent operation of drying the tankage remaining in the jacketed 
cylinder after the water and grease has been run off, is also a 
point of difference between this and other forms. 

The operation of the Wiselogel systems are under three 
patents: No. 442,298, December, 1890 Apparatus for heating 
garbage. No. 536,677, April, 1895 For dryer. No. 554,206, 
February 4, 1896 Apparatus for reducing garbage for fertiliz- 
ers. Other patents are reported as pending. There are no 
obtainable reports as to the percentages of grease and values of 
tankage under this process. 

The Vincennes plant was reported as injured by fire on Novem- 
ber 2, 1901, and was completely destroyed by fire on the night of 
February 26, 1908. It is reported that contracts have been let 
for the rebuilding of the plant at a cost of $35,000. 

In 1902, the patents and business of Mr. Wiselogel were taken 
over by 3 corporation formed in Boston under the name of the 
International Waste Utilization Company, with a strong board 
of directors from prominent business men of the city of Boston, 
Taunton, Lynn, Brockton, Springfield and Providence. 

The active work of this company was in the hands of the 
Sanitary Reduction and Construction Company, a Boston corpor- 
ation with offices at Indianapolis, Ind. There was also a third 
corporation, known as the American Underwriting Company, 
which published its intentions to revolutionize the whole work 
of garbage collection and disposal throughout this country by 
this system, and whose prophet and apostle was Mr. Louis H. 
Schneider, president of the company. His campaign throughout 
the West will be remembered for the extraordinarily brilliant 
promises made and the absolute lack of performance in any city 
where contracts were said to have been made. 

Meantime, the Standard Reduction and Construction Company 
obtained permission for an experimental plant at Jacksonville, 



THE DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY REDUCTION. 



Fla., which was installed in a small building adjoining the Dixon 
crematory. 

This Jacksonville plant comprised one small unit of the same 
dimensions and capacity as at Vincennes, but had also a boiler, 
fired with dry refuse from the city and burned in the Wiselogel 
destructor, a new form of crematory. 

There are no accurate reports of this work obtainable, but 
after a precarious and intermittent existence for a few months, 




FIG. 91. THE WISELOGEL REDUCTION PLANT, 
JACKSONVILLE, FLA. 

a fire occurred which burned the enclosing building and damaged 
the apparatus. The city would not contract for the disposal of 
garbage separately collected and the enterprise was abandoned. 
These two examples of the practical operation of the Wise- 
logel garbage reduction system are believed to be the only ones 
built in this country for municipal service. 

AMERICAN REDUCTION PROCESS, READING, PA. 

The experience of this city with garbage disposal methods has 
not been of a pleasing nature. The first attempt to improve exist- 
ing methods was in 1897, when a contract was made with the 
Davis Garbage Crematory Company, of Lancaster, Pa., for a 



388 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

furnace rated at 80 tons capacity, at the price of $9,850. Upon 
the completion and trial the furnace was found not to meet the 
terms of contract in point of capacity and operation and the 
plant was abandoned. 

In the fall of 1898, the city contracted with the General Amer- 
ican Reduction Company, a company organized under New Jersey 
State laws, for the disposal of garbage for a term of five years 
by some satisfactory reduction process. The City Trust Deposit 
Company, of Philadelphia, became the bondsman on behalf of 
the company. The company was to receive 65 cents per ton 
for disposal, and pending the erection of their plant were to 
rebuild the Davis crematory. 

The company occupied a brick building at Millmont, a suburb 
of the city, which was equipped with reduction apparatus. After 
a year's effort the company ceased work and abandoned the 
plant to the city, basing this action on the claim that not enough 
garbage was being delivered to enable them to operate at a 
profit. The city, viewing the matter as a breech of contract, 
brought suit against the reduction company and their bonding 
company in 1902. The latter went into the hands of a receiver, 
with no recoverable assets. The reduction company claimed the 
machinery in the plant, but was enjoined from removing it. The 
matter was compromised by paying the company $500 and allow- 
ing them to remove the machinery and restore the building to 
its former condition. 

The method employed was that of the American reduction 
process, but no details as to the quantities handled or the value 
of the products can be had. 

THE ARNOLD PROCESS. 

There was formed another company, about 1902, which was 
called the Reading Sanitary Reduction Company, and which had 
a contract for the collection and disposal of the garbage for a 
period of five years at the rate of $2.24 per ton, by reduction. 
The plant of this company is at Grill Post Office, another suburb 
of Reading, and is said to be now operating. The Arnold 
methods in a modified form are used, but no reports of quantities 
or costs are given. The plant is in operation with apparent suc- 
cess, and there are few complaints of imperfect collection. 



THE DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY REDUCTION. 389 

AMERICAN REDUCTION PROCESS, YORK, PA. 

The population of York, census 1905, was reported at 38,258, 
but the present figures are claimed to be nearly 50,000. There 
has been in this city the usual experience with various means 
of garbage disposal, beginning first with removal to outskirts 
and dump-tipping, collections of garbage by private parties and 
farmers for stock feeding, and a Dixon garbage cremator of 
twenty-five tons capacity, built in 1896 and discontinued 1904. 
For about two years the York Chemical Works had the contract 
for disposal, but the process or method employed was either 
not profitable or was unsatisfactory. At the expiration of this 
contract the city advertised for bids for collection and disposal 
of the organic garbage, ashes and refuse. The amount of garbage 
was estimated at 3,000 tons per year. 

A proposition from a Philadelphia contractor to establish a 
"feeding plant" for hogs and sheep was not accepted. 

The bids for ten-year contract for collection and disposal of 
organic and inorganic matters were: 

G W. Ruch & Co., Philadelphia $18,405. 12 

Jno. A Rayling & Co.. York 19,000 .00 

Chas. C. Fischer, Reading 16,260 .00 

The bid of Mr. Fischer was accepted to date from April I, 
1906, with a yearly increase for additional amounts collected. 
The present payment to the company is at the rate of $1,550 
per month, $18,600 per year. 

The York Sanitary Reduction Company was organized, and 
the plant for reduction of the organic waste was built just out- 
side the city limits. The collections are made three times a week 
for garbage in iron wagons with canvas covers. The wagon 
bodies are hinged to the rear axle and discharged by hoisting 
blocks. The ashes and refuse are removed in wooden wagons 
to dumps. The company keeps a special wagon for dead animals 
and for the removal of any cans overlooked at any time. A 
fine of $i is assessed for each complaint of non-removal three 
hours after complaints are made. 

The reduction plant is enclosed in wooden buildings cheaply 
built, the whole costing not to exceed $10,000. The wagons dis- 
charge their loads into a pit provided with grated bottoms, 
through which the liquids are drained. From the pit a conveyor 



390 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

carries it to the digester floor, the glass, tins, etc., being re- 
moved while in transit. 

There are four digesters of the usual capacity of five to six 
tons. The contractor claims his method to be the "dry" extrac- 
tion process. No water is used for cooking the garbage ; steam 
is introduced at the bottom of the digesters in such a way that 
it permeates the entire mass. 

The pressure is said to be 40 Ibs per square inch, but may 
be increased, if necessary. The superintendent of the works 
claims "that the whole secret of successful reduction is knowing 
when the materials are properly cooked." He says: "This is 
essential both for obtaining the maximum amount of grease and 
preventing disagreeable odors. Testing valves are placed in 
the base of the digesters by which the attendant may determine 
this, as no definite time for cooking is set. Two batches may 
be cooked every twenty-four hours. There is no stirring or 
moving the garbage when once in the digester." 

Pipes from the top of the digesters carry the vapors through 
condensers and thence to the fire-box of the boilers. From the 
digesters a bucket conveyor delivers the garbage, of the con- 
sistency of soup, to the hydraulic presses, the grease and water 
falling into flotation troughs or basins, and separation is made in 
the usual way, by skimming. What disposition is made of the 
water is not known. The tankage is dried in a rotary dryer, 
afterward ground and sold for fertilizer base. The quantity 
treated daily averages about twenty-five tons. 

Mr. Fischer states that there was very little profit in the opera- 
tion of the reduction plant, but that it paid the expense of a 
satisfactory disposal. Any profit to the company comes from 
the collection contract. 

The construction of .the works and methods of operating fol- 
low those of the Reading reduction plant where the contract 
for disposal is held by the Reading Sanitary Reduction Com- 
pany controlled by Mr. Fischer.. 

The apparatus and means employed are of the usual types of 
other reduction plants, using steam only for reducing the garbage. 
There may be some special method of introducing the steam 
into the digesters, or of regulating the pressure and observing 
the progress of the work, but these seem to be the only points 



THE DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY REDUCTION. 391 

of difference from others. No reports of quantities, values of 
product of grease, or tankage could be obtained. 

PENN REDUCTION COMPANY: "BEASTON PROCESS." 

Extracts from special report of E. A. Fisher., City Engineer of 
Rochester, N. Y., 1906: 

This city made no regular collection of garbage until 1879. 
Prior to that time, it was taken by the farmers from a few 
small city districts and carried into the country in open wagons. 
Most of the waste was dumped upon vacant lots, or an attempt 
made to burn it in the open air. 

In 1880, the City Council passed resolutions calling upon the 
Executive Board to remove garbage from the public lanes and 
alleys. This continued until May, 1881, when the supervision 
was transferred to the Board of Health, and it was collected 
by day labor by hired teams. In 1895 the Rochester Fertilizer 
and Reduction Company secured a contract to collect and dis- 
pose of all garbage, night-soil, dead animals, etc., at a cost of 
$28,970 per year for the first year, and additional amounts of 
$940 per annum for five years following 1894, and thereafter, 
beginning with 1900, at the rate of 19 cents per capita for the 
increase in the population of the city according to the City 
Directory. 

The location of the plant was, after many objections to other 
sites, fixed at Waynesport, a considerable distance to the east 
of the city, the garbage being transported on the New York 
Central Railroad lines. In 1896, the Health Department re- 
ported the cost at $29,910 per year, and that neither collection 
nor disposal had been satisfactorily carried out by the company. 

The power of the Board of Health to make this contract 
having been questioned, the Council, in 1899, made a private 
contract for the sum of $2,000 per month, which continued until 
1900, when, under the new charter of the city, the work came 
under the charge of the Commissioner of Public Works. Bids 
were called for a new contract let for seven months of 1900 for 
$12,000. Thereafter yearly contracts were let up to 1906. 

The garbage receptacles at the houses were of iron, of a 
capacity of one gallon for each individual in the building. The 
wagons were of wood covered with canvas. 



392 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 



The records for 1902 show that nearly all of this garbage was 
taken to farms outside the city lines, a part dumped into a 
trench and composted with horse manure. 

TABLE LXVII. QUANTITIES AND COSTS COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL 
GARBAGE, ROCHESTER, FIVE YEARS. 







QUANTITIES 


COSTS 


Year 


Popu- 
lation 


Tone 


Lbs pr Capita 


Per 


Per 


Per 






Per 
Year 


Per 
Day 


Year 


Day 


Year 

$ 


Ton 

$ 


Cap- 
ita 
Cts. 


1901 


165,000 


16,380 


52.5 


199 


o 64 


27,856 


.70 


17.0 


1902 


168,000 


17.346 


55-5 


206 


o 66 


26,300 


38 


!5-4 


1903 


17 1,000 


19,026 


61 .0 


223 


0.71 


27,322 


-57 


16.3 


1904 


17 5,000 


22.964 


73-6 


262 


0.84 


39,98i 


74 


22.8 


i95 


181,670 


21,800 


70 .0 


240 


0.77 


35,6i5 


-63 


19 .6 



The average for 1906 at above figures would be about 83 tons 
per day. 

The ashes and rubbish of Rochester collected together for 
the period of six years- are thus tabulated: 

TABLE LXVIII. QUANTITIES AND COST OF COLLECTION AND DIS- 
POSAL ASHES FOR SIX YEARS. 











Total 


Quan- 


Quan- 


Cost 


Cost 








Esti- 


Cost 


tity 


tity 


Per 


Per 


Year 


Popu- 
lation 


Cubic 
Yards 


mated 
Weight 


Coll't'n 
and Dis- 


Per 

1,000 


of 
Popu- 


Cu. 
Yard 


Cap- 
ita 








Tons 


posal 




lation 














$ 


Yards 


Tons 


$ 


$ 


1900 


162,000 


206,208 


94,959 


76,421 


,268 


584 


o-37 


0.47 


1901 


165,000 


216,844 


99,657 


77,664 


,3!4 


605 


o-35 


0.47 


1902 


168,000 


216,912 


99,888 


75-948 


,291 


595 


0-35 


o-45 


1903 


171,000 


219,736 


101,188 


76,670 


,285 


590 


o-35 


0.47 


1904 


175,000 


324,000 


108,125 


93,687 


,342 


618 


o-39 


0-53 


1905 


181,670 


253,000 


116,576 


97,208 


,391 


642 


0.38 


o-53 



Estimated weight per cubic yard ashes, 1,600; of rubbish, 200 
pounds. Average per cubic yard of ashes and rubbish in fore- 
going table 921 pounds. Estimated total amount of rubbish 
separated, at 125,000 cubic yards or 12,500 tons per annum. 



THE DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY REDUCTION. 393 

The recommendations made by Mr. Fisher were briefly: 

1. Advertisements for proposals for collection and disposal 
of garbage for five years; wagons to be of approved pattern; 
collections daily in central part of city remainder, three times 
weekly. 

2. Contractor to satisfy Board he has sufficient area of land 
outside city to bury garbage temporarily in case of breakdown 
of disposal plant. 

3. That the contractor shall satisfy Board that the methods 
he intends to use are in successful operation in some city of 
considerable size, and that the plant has a capacity sufficient to 
take care of maximum amount that may probably be collected 
during term of contract. 

4. Separation of ashes and refuse and construction of plants 
for burning unsalable parts of rubbish. 

The recommendations of Mr. Fisher were adopted, and the 
work was advertised in 1906. The proposal of the Genesee 
Reduction Company was accepted for a term of years, from 
January i, 1907, at a yearly rate of $59,770. 

The estimated amount of 83 tons daily for 1906 was exceeded 
in the first year's work of the plant, the quantity being about 
1 8 per cent, more, or 30,661 tons. This disposal is made at the 
rate of 36.1 cents per capita per annum and at a cost of $1.95 
per ton. 

The location of the works of the reduction company is on 
the west bank of the Genesee River, between the upper and 
lower falls. This location is within less than one mile of the 
business center of the city. The narrow shelf of the river bank 
at this point, on which the works are placed, is about 150 feet 
below the level of the city streets, immediately adjoining. The 
river cuts through a canyon below the falls, with high banks. 
At the bottom of this canyon, on the east bank, are the works. 
It is a critical location with respect to possible nuisance from 
odors from the chimney or the entire plant. 

The reduction plant has been in operation since June 5, 1907. 
At first there were numerous complaints, based very largely upon 
prejudice against the name "garbage plant." These complaints 
have almost entirely ceased, and up to the present time the plant 
has been operated without serious offense. (Paper of Mr. Fisher 



394 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

in Proceedings of American Society Civil Engineers, December, 

19070 
The author made an inspection of the plant in the summer of 

1906 just before it went into service. The ground is admirably 
suited to the delivery of the garbage, the conveyor for the diges- 
ters being but a short distance, and all the work being accom- 
plished by the aid of gravity, no lifting or pumping being needed. 

The process is said by Mr. Fisher to be a modification of the 
Arnold, and is called the "Beaston Process." Exactly wherein 
the difference lies a casual survey did not reveal. There is the 
usual system of digesters from which the macerated garbage is 
delivered into the hydraulic presses and the same system of 
gutters and skimming basins for the grease recovery. There 
was no solvent used, the whole process being like the Arnold, 
one of treatment by steam and the recovery of the grease by 
pressure, with an improved means for drying out the tankage. 
No accurate information concerning the "Beaston Process" can 
be obtained, and there are no reports as to the quantities and 
value of the grease and tankage. 

The city engineer recommends that there be a refuse disposal 
plant placed near this reduction plant, at which the city rubbish 
may be destroyed, and that the ashes be used for filling ravines, 
old quarries, etc. 



CHAPTER XVII. 

THE EDSON PROCESS THE MUNICIPAL REDUCTION PLANT AT 
CLEVELAND ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF REDUCTION METHODS. 

The city of Dayton, Ohio, had, in 1896, a Dixon crematory in 
use capacity, 80 tons per day. This was destroyed by fire in 
1898 and not rebuilt. In October, 1903, the city received pro- 
posals from the Edson Development and Machinery Company, 
of Toledo, by which this company agreed to receive the garbage, 
dead animals and night-soil, at a point on the outskirts of the 
city and to dispose of this free of expense to the city. 

This proposal was one of several made at different places by 
the Toledo Development Company, the representatives of the 
owners of the Edson process, by which it was claimed that the 
returns from the products were so lucrative that the company 
could afford to take the garbage free of cost. After a long 
delay to perfect their organization and erect their plant, the 
company proceeded with the contract. Difficulties were encoun- 
tered from the outset, because of imperfect separation of the 
garbage, and irregular delivery at the point where the company 
received the garbage. 

There has been considerable trouble with its operation because 
of the excessive amount of naphtha required as compared with 
the estimated amount on which the original calculations were 
made. There were many complaints from nearby residents of 
noxious odors, and charges were made that the location chosen 
was not the one originally designated when the contract was 
secured. 

In 1907 a strong remonstrance was made by the local im- 
provement association which led to the establishment of two 
loading stations by the city, at which the garbage is transferred 
to the company's teams for transportation to the reduction 
works, with more attention to abatement of nuisance. 

The capacity of the reduction plant was at first sixty tons per 
day. No reports of quantities handled or value of products can 

395 



396 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

be had. The present capacity of the plant is 100 tons daily, 
the cost of the works being reported at $60,000. 

EDSON PROCESS, TOLEDO. 

In the summer of 1903 this city received tenders for the dis- 
posal of approximately 50 to 60 tons of garbage per day. Of 
the four proposals received that of the Toledo Development 
Company, controlling the Edson reduction process, was accepted, 
and in July of that year a contract was signed with the Toledo 
Sanitary Reduction Company, a local corporation formed for 
this purpose, and working under the patents of the Edson Re- 
duction Machinery Company. The city agreed to collect and 
deliver the garbage at the plant, and the company contracted 
"to do the work of disposal by the reduction process, carried on 
in closed digesters, dryers and percolators from which no gases, 
vapors or odors shall escape; and that all garbage shall be so 
treated and all products resulting from the same, before being 
exposed to the air, shall be made perfectly sterile and free from 
offensive odors." 

The company was to receive no payment from the city, and 
the contract was for ten years. 

Strong objections were made to the proposed location, and 
the final site fixed upon was at Green Street on Swan Creek, 
where the plant was constructed in 1904. In 1906 it was found 
that the quantity of garbage was lessening, owing to the fact 
that the proprietors of hotels, and others, delivered it to farmers 
for the feeding of stock. The question of the rights of the 
city over the collection and removal of garbage was taken to 
the courts, and it was decided that as the city made its own 
collections, under its own regulations, it had power to restrain 
others from collecting garbage inside the corporate boundaries. 

On this question the decision of the U. S. Supreme Court 
(199 U. S., 306, and 199 U. S., 325) affirms that household 
garbage is not private property which can be disposed of by 
the producers in a manner contrary to the requirements of city 
ordinances or the rules of a Board of Health. 

A later decision in an Ohio Court is thus reported in a local 
newspaper, under date of March 31, 1908; 



THE DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY REDUCTION. 397 

Refuse Disposal is in Power of City: Judge Brown rendered the fol- 
lowing decision Saturday morning: 

In the case of the Dayton Reduction Company vs. the City of Dayton, 
demurrer to petition overruled in all respects, and defendant ruled to 
answer, the court holding that the city has the right of ownership in 
all garbage, dead animals and night-soil within the city, and has full 
authority to compel the collection and disposal of such unsanitary mate- 
rials under the statute, and under the general police powers of the city. 

In January, 1906, the company offered to take the garbage 
of the city of Detroit, about 100 tons daily, and haul it sixty 
miles to the Toledo plant for treatment. This offer was, how- 
ever, declined. In October, 1906, the company was in financial 
straits, and the business passed into the hands of a receiver. 
The capital of the company was stated to be $200,000, but only 
$50,000 was paid in cash. Sixty thousand dollars of bonus 
stock was issued, and the indebtedness was about $75,000, the 
bonded debt being $100,000. 

In March, 1907, complaints of nuisance were made, which 
were justified, as admitted by the company's attorneys. In 
May the City Solicitor alleged that "the company knew that 
the system which it had installed would not do the work as 
promised, and that the plant has not sufficient capacity, and that 
the conditions were decreasing the value of surrounding prop- 
erty and endangering the health of the residents." 

On July 13, 1907, the plant was closed by order of the court, 
the entry in the case also including the statement of the receiver 
showing that the plant was operated at a loss. 

At this time the city is investigating the various methods 
of disposal of all classes of municipal waste by incineration. 

MUNICIPAL REDUCTION PLANT, CLEVELAND, OHIO. 

Combined Chamberlain and Edson Reduction Processes. 
Prior to 1905 the garbage of Cleveland was collected and re- 
moved under private contract with the Newburgh Reduction 
Company, at an annual cost of $69,400 per year. The disposal 
was made by the reduction methods of the Chamberlain process 
at a point outside the city limits. This service was not free 
from complaints, and as most of the transportation was by 
wagons, was slow and expensive. 



398 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

On January i, 1905, the city purchased from the Newburgh 
company the reduction works and collection equipment, at a 
cost of $87,500. At that time the works had a capacity of 100 
tons per day by the Chamberlain or "Liquid Separation Sys- 
tem," employing fourteen digesters and a corresponding num- 
ber of hydraulic presses, settling tanks and steam- jacketed 
dryers. 

Upon acquiring the property, the city installed an Edson 
reduction equipment, adding three units, each of two digesters 
and one dryer, and increasing the capacity of the plant to 240 
tons per day. The work of the first year (1906) was delayed 
somewhat by a small fire in the dryer building, also by delay 
of constructors in furnishing machinery not up to the standard 
of contract. 

For the collection service is used a wagon of special design, 
holding about 3,500 Ibs. The wagon body is hinged to the 
bolster and is dumped by hoisting chains attached to the front 
of the body that raise it to permit the garbage to fall out at 
the rear end. The purpose of this is to keep the load as much 
as possible on the front of the wagon for easier hauling by 
one horse. The wagons have canvas covers, to prevent noise 
usually made by iron covers. 

The garbage is received in special steel cars, made with semi- 
circular bottoms, thirty feet long, supported on trunnions at 
three points. The capacity of these cars is about forty tons, and 
ten are required for the service. 

To unload the cars at the works, cables are passed beneath the 
body and, by means of hoisting blocks, the car body is tippe:!, 
unloading the garbage onto the concrete floor of the reduction 
works. Although the capacity of these is forty tons, but two 
men are required to tip them. 

The loading station for the cars and stables for city teams 
are on Canal Road, about three-quarters of a mile from the 
City Hall. The reduction plant is at Willow, Ohio, outside the 
city limits, about nine miles from the loading station. The cars 
are carried over the tracks of the N. Y., P. & O. R. R. to the 
works. 

The arrangement of the buildings is quite different from the 
usual design where the several steps of the work are done in 



THE DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY REDUCTION. 399 

the same or closely connected buildings. Here they are separ- 
ated, each process having its own building. 

From a description of the works, contained in a paper by 
Hon. W. J. Springborn, President of a Board of Public Service, 
Cleveland, the following excerpt is made: 

The arrangement of the buildings, tracks and so forth, at the works 
is shown in an accompanying illustration. The railroad cars are 
run into a receiving building, where the garbage is dumped on a con- 
crete floor. From this floor the garbage is shoveled into two conveyors, 
with 6 x 18 x 24-in. flights, which deliver it to the top floor of a digester 
building. These conveyors, which were installed by the Jeffrey Mfg. Co., 
of Columbus, Ohio, and all other machines are driven by separate motors, 
thus avoiding the use of main line shafts and belts. A 25o-h.-p. Monarch 
Corliss engine, direct-connected to a Triumph generator, furnishes power 
to operate the works. Steam is supplied from a boiler plant containing 
five 8o-h.-p. and two iso-h.-p. return tubular boilers. 

The conveyors pass through the digester building in a horizontal posi- 
tion and drop the garbage through tubes directly into the digesters or 
tanks, where the same is cooked. Twenty-four digesters, each having 
a capacity of 10 tons per day, making the total daily capacity of the plant 
240 tons, are installed. The digesters are 14 ft. high and 54 in. in diameter. 
When the digesters are filled, steam is turned into the material at a poinc 
near the bottom of the tank and the garbage allowed to cook from 
six to seven hours, 70 Ib. steam pressure being used. When the cooking 
process is completed, the steam is shut off at the bottom of the tank and 
turned in at the top, the pressure thus produced driving off the free water 
and some of the grease through a draw-off pipe at the bottom. In order 
to prevent the material from passing out with the water, a strainer and 
strainer-plate are used. This mixture of water and grease is pumped 
into settling vats and allowed to cool, after which the grease is skimmed 
off the top. The solids remaining in the digester are removed through 
an opening in the side of the tank about 12 in. from the bottom and 
deposited in a small car, which is equipped with a worm conveyor, auto- 
matically unloading it into a drag conveyor that takes the material to 
the dryers. It is first put into a steam-jacketed dryer 14 ft. long and 
5 ft. in diameter. This dryer has a shaft through its center with paddles 
attached. As the shaft rotates the paddles lift the material, breaking 
it up and at the same time evaporating some of the moisture. This type 
of dryer is equipped with two manholes underneath it, through which 
the material is dropped into still another conveyor and conveyed to a 
combination steam and hot air rotary dryer, which was designed by 
Mr. E. S. Peck, Superintendent of the plant. The cylinder of this dryer 
is 30 ft. long, 57 in. in diameter, with a 2-in. space between the inner 
and outer shell for the admission of steam. There is also a 14-in. steam 
pipe running through its center. To the sides of the inner shell are 



400 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

attached flights, 4 in. in width, which lift the material as the dryer ro- 
tates. 

The dryer is set on a grade of a /^-in. per foot, and the tankage (as 
the material is called) is fed in at the upper end and discharged at the 
lower, the process being a continuous one. At the lower end of the 
dryer is a series of steam coils with an attached blower, which forces 
the air around these coils, heating it to about 230 F. This dry air 
then passes through the dryer, absorbing the moisture from the tankage 
as it falls from the flights referred to. 

About 50 ft. distant from the dryer building is located the percolator 
building, to which the material is next conveyed, and where the grease 
is extracted by the use of naphtha. In the upper part of this building 
there are three bins for the storage of tankage. Under each of these 
bins is a tank 8 ft. high and 6 ft. in diameter, which is called a per- 
colator. The material is put in through an opening in the top. When 
filled, the percolator is sealed and naphtha or gasoline is pumped in at 
the top and allowed to percolate through the material, being drawn off at 
the bottom and carrying with it the grease. The grease and naphtha flow 
to a treating tank in which there are steam pipes, where it is heated 
sufficiently to vaporize the naphtha and leave the grease in the tank. The 
vaporized naphtha passes through a condenser, restoring it to its liquid 
form, and from which it is again pumped into the percolator. After all 
of the grease has been extracted from the material left in the percolator, 
the flow of naphtha is turned 'off, and in order to recover such of the 
naphtha still remaining in this material, steam is injected into the tankage, 
vaporizing and driving off the naphtha. This mixture of steam and 
naphtha vapor also goes to the condenser and thence to the storage tank. 
The water produced by the condensation of the steam is drawn off from 
the bottom of the storage tank. 

To reduce the condensation of steam to a minimum, it is first admitted 
into the tank at a point near the top of the percolator. When the mate- 
rial about this point has been heated and the naphtha vaporized, steam is 
turned in at about the middle of the tank, and afterward at the bottom, 
repeating the process until all the naphtha has been vaporized. The loss 
of naphtha b v this system is about 25^ gal. to the ton of dry tankage. 
The openings in the percolator, through which the grease and naphtha 
escape, are covered with perforated plates and pipes designed to prevent 
carrying the tankage through same. The material is removed both from 
the side and the bottom of the percolator, placed in a conveyor, and sent 
toa- small building about 20 ft. distant, in which it passes through .1 
hexagonal revolving screen, taking out rags, tin, pieces of crockery, glass, 
and so forth. From here the finished product is conveyed to the storag - 
house and there loaded upon cars for shipment. 

The taking out of the material from the above type of percolator and 
replacing the small perforated plates and pipes through which the grease 
escapes, involves considerable time and labor. Mr. Peck has invented a 
new type of percolator, which Mr. Springborn believes will overcome 



THE DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY REDUCTION. 401 

these objections, and at the same time greatly reduce the loss of naphtha 
and leave the material much dryer. This percolator is similar in design 
to the dryer designed by Mr. Peck, except that it is but 14 feet in length 
and 8 feet in diameter. It is placed in a horizontal position, has a steam 
jacket, and is constructed to rotate in the same manner as the dryer. 
The material is put into this percolator through two manholes in its upper 
side. The pipes for the admission of gasoline are also connected through 
the covers in these manholes. The grease and naphtha escape through 
three openings in the lower part of the tank, and in order to hasten the 
process. of percolation the pipes can readily be disconnected and the per- 
colator rotated so as to mix thoroughly the entire mass of material with 
the naphtha or solvent used. 

In order to recover the naphtha after the grease has been extracted, 
steam is turned into the drum and jacket and the percolator made to 
revolve, thus while heating the material, also moving the same sufficiently 
to release quickly all of the solvent contained in the tankage. By this 
method no moisture is added to the material nor steam mixed with the 
vapors, which go to the condenser and thence to the storage tank. By 
the use of this type of percolator, it is thought the loss of naphtha will 
not exceed the one gallon per ton of material treated. 

The naphtha storage building is constructed of concrete, the tanks 
being placed below the ground level, with only the roof of the building 
projecting above the surface. 

In the old process formerly used, the grease was extracted by means 
of hydraulic presses, the tankage being placed between burlap on racks 
in layers of 3 inches thick and 5 feet square. The cylinder of the presses 
was 14 inches in diameter, and subjected to a pressure of 3,500 pounds 
to the square inch. By this means the liquids were squeezed out of the 
material, carrying the grease with same to a vat, where, after cooling and 
settling, the grease was skimmed off. The tankage produced by this 
method is not as desirable to the trade as that which is being made from 
the new process. There is about 12 per cent, of grease left in the pressed 
tankage, whereas in the other there is only about 2 per cent. The grease 
being the most valuable part of the product, makes it desirable to recover 
as large a percentage as possible. 

TABLE LXIX. COMBINED INCOME AND EXPENSE STATEMENT, 

CLEVELAND REDUCTION PLANT, FOR SIX MONTHS ENDING 

JUNE 30 AND DECEMBER 31, 1907. 

GROSS INCOME 

6 Months 6 Months 12 Months 

June 30, '07 Dec. 31, '07 Total 

From sale of product $60,514.61 $55,809.85 $116,324.46 

From inventory of product 6,473.75 554-9 2 **,97& 67 

From sale of raw material 237.50 241.55 479.05 

From rents 46.00 54 . 5 1 i oo . 5 1 

From miscellaneous income: 

Collection Department 318.95 29.00 347 .95 

$67,590.81 $61,639.83 $129,230.64 



402 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

TABLE LXIX. (Continued.) 

EXPENSES 
AT WILLOW OHIO (DISPOSAL PLANT) : 

Labor at plant $20,612.72 $23,572.55 $44,185.27 

Coal at plant 9,050.57 7,319.18 16,369.75 

Superintendence and clerk 

hire 1,721.70 i, 775-04 3,496.74 

Repairs and renewals to 



Press cloth 


O>OV" ~J 
I 2 6? 6 ^ 


I 80"? 4 1 


o| " o J 

3 i 6 i 06 


Press racks 


427 48 


c^8 02 


06 ? <o 


Insurance 


124 . so 


62 . ^ s 


186 85 


Office supplies . . 


104 .47 


281 .96 


786 4-? 


Oil, waste, telephone, water, 
etc 
Taxes 


3,488.29 
103 .40 


1,843 -60 
265 .00 


5,33i-89 
4 <o . 30 


Commission, analysis, weigh- 
ing cars etc , 


32 Z . QI 


145 .66 


47 1 ^7 


Freight on product, purchase 
dead animals, etc 


795-70 


1,407 .28 


2,202 .98 



$43,508.42 $41,785.25 $85,293.67 

AT CANAL STREET (COLLECTION PLANT) : 

Labor, teamsters, etc $25,180.77 $28,919.47 $54.100.24 

Feed 7,896.94 8,743.04 16,639.98 

Freight on garbage 2,837.77 2,986.03 5,823.80 

Superintendents and clerk 

hire 1,290.00 1,140.00 2,430.00 

Shoeing 1,480.65 1,651.85 3.132.50 

Repairs and renewals t o 

freight cars, wagons, etc. 2,441.40 3,129.35 557-75 

Repairs to harness 490.51 698.55 1,189.06 

All other sundry expenses not 

itemized above: 

Supplies for barn, light, 

etc 1,673.95 1,546.07 3,220.02 

Insurance 224 .94 301 . 18 526 . 12 

EXTRAORDINARY EXPENSES. $43, 516.93 $49," 5- 54 $92,632.47 

Auditing $150.00 $150.00 $300.00 

Losses on horses, cars, etc ... 400.00 276.00 676.00 

Losses on bad accounts 2 1 . oo 21.00 

Depreciation on machinery, 

plant and equipment at 

Willow, O., at 10% per 

year :..-.... 4,072.11 5,829.69 9,901.80 

Depreciation on wagons, 

horses, stable and other 

equipment at Canal St., 

at 10% per year 2,105.43 2,694. 10 4.79Q- 53 

TOTAL EXPENSES: $6,727.54 $8,970.79 $15,698.33 

At Willow, O $43,508.42 $41,785.25 $85.293.67 

At Canal Street . 43,516.93 49,115.54 92,632.47 

Extraordinary and deprecia- 
tion 6,727 . 54 8,970.79 15,698.33 

$93,752.89 $99,871.58 $193,624.47 

Total income 67,590.81 61.639.83 129,230 64 

Net operating expense. . $26,162 .08 $38,231.75 $64,393.83 



THE DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY REDUCTION. 



403 



TABLE LXX. SUMMARY OF PRODUCT, SALES AND INVENTORY, 
CLEVELAND REDUCTION PLANT. 



JANUARY i, 1907 TO JULY i, 1907 

Average Price 

@ $4-25 cwt. 

@ 7- 8 5 ton 

@ 2 .47 ton 

181 Ibs. hair '. @ .20 Ib. 

115 tails 

220 hides. . 



Quantity Article 

1,225,290 Ibs. grease 

2,756,281 Ibs. dry tankage.. 
2,439,010 Ibs. pressed tankage, 
h 



.30 each 
4.65 each 



Total first six months, 1907. 



Amount 

$52,068.44 

10,816 . 14 

3,011 .61 

36.20 

34-50 

I,O2I .47 
$66,988.36 



JULY i, 1907, TO JANUARY i, 1908 



Quantity Article 
i 140 080 Ibs grease 


Average Price Amount 
. . . @ $4 . 2 98 cwt $49 042 40 


836,406 Ibs. dry tankage 
6,353,518 Ibs. pressed tankage 
342 Ibs hair 


@ 6.888 ton 2,880.81 
@ 2 .50 ton 7,943.25 
@ . 1442 Ib. 49 30 


307 hides 


@ 4 .496 each i 380 41 


62 tails 


@ .30 each 1 8 60 







Total last six months, 1907.. . 



$61,314.77 



TABLE LXXI. COMPARISON OF GARBAGE DELIVERED AT CLEVE- 
LAND REDUCTION PLANT AT WILLOW, O., DURING 
THE YEARS 1906 AND 1907. 



1907 

Month Lbs. 

January 6,402,000 

February 5,512,000 

March 6,067 

April 6,144,500 

May 6,139,000 

June 5,719,000 

July 5,895,400 

August 6,130,700 

September 7,038,000 

October 7,494,300 

November 6, 1 56,700 

December 6,512,900 



Total 

Average per month. 
* Decrease. 



75,211,500 
6,267,625 



1906 


Increase 


Lbs. 


Lbs. 


4,784,000 


1,618,000 


3,994,000 


1,518,000 


4,520,000 


1,547,000 


4,694,000 


1,450,500 


5,430,000 


709,000 


5,936,000 


*2I7JOOO 


5,464,000 


431,400 


8,024,000 


*I, 893,300 


7,478,000 


*44o,coo 


7,098,000 


396,300 


6,204,000 


47,3 CO 


6,1 56,000 


356,900 


69,782,000 


5,429,500 


5,815,167 


45 2 ,45 8 



The preceding tables give the figures of income and expenses 
for the year 1907, the values of products sold, the amounts of 
garbage per year, and a summary of the financial statements 
for three years : 



404 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 



FINANCIAL STATEMENT, CLEVELAND REDUCTION PLANT. 
TABLE LXXII. COST OF COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL PER TON. 

Condensed from auditors' reports for years 1905-6-7 : 



Year 



1905 
1906 



Amounts 
Tons 



30,382 

34.891 
37,6o5 



Cost 
Collection 



$62,803.78 
74,334.32 
92,632.47 



Per 

Ton 



$2.05 
2.13 
2.46 



Cost 
Disposal 



$54.449.88 
83,383-98 



Per 
Ton 



$i-79 
2-39 

2 .26 



Total 
Cost 
Ton 

$3-85 
4-52 
4.72 



ADDING EXTRAORDINARY EXPENSES. DEPRECIATION, ETC. 



1905 
1906 
1907 



30,382 
34,891 



65,989.03 
79,232.86 
98,419 .00 



2.17 
2.27 
2.62 



60,690.37 
87 377.00 
95,i95 55 



1.99 
2.50 
2.50 



4 . 16 
4-77 
5- 12 



INCOME FROM DISPOSAL PLANT 

1905. From sale of products, inventory, 

rents, etc $65,881 . 14 

Total operating expenses $54,449 .38 

Extra expenses and depreciation. ... 6310.99 

60,760.37 

Net profit not including interest 

charges $5.120.77 

1906. From sale products, inventory, rents, 

etc $106,990.41 

Total operating expenses $83,383 .88 

Extra expenses and depreciation. . . . 3,993 -25 

8 7,377- I 3 

Net profit not including interest 

charges $19,613.28 

1907. From sale products, inventory, rents, 

etc $129,230.64 

Total operating expenses $85,293 .67 

Extra expenses and depreciation 9,9 01 -80 

95,195-47 

Net profit not including interest 

charges $34,03 5.17 

Assume value of plant in 1905 at $70,495.37. The returns 
are approximately 7.2 per cent, on investment. 

For 1906, at a valuation of $146,297.18, the returns are 14 
per cent, on value of investment. 



THE DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY REDUCTION. 405 

For 1907, returns on total investment at valuation of $222,- 
726.92 is 15 per cent., and on disposal plant alone, $173,855.92, is 
20 per cent. 

These details respecting the Cleveland reduction plant are 
given at some length, as this is the first of the process methods 
to be operated by any municipality, and now, for the first time, 
after twenty years of work by reduction means, we are fully 
informed as to the costs of the work and the value of the 
products. 

These results have been obtained after persistent effort on 
the part of the President of Board of Public Service, Mr. W. J. 
Springborn, backed by a public-spirited Mayor and City Council. 

The record stands in sharp contrast with the operation of 
many private plants where the work is done for a large bonus 
paid by the city, together with a still larger revenue derived 
from the sale of the manufactured waste. 

THE AMERICAN EXTRACTOR COMPANY PROCESS, NEW BED- 
FORD, MASS. 

For some years after the closing of the Holthaus reduction 
plant at New Bedford, the waste of New Bedford was treated 
by the usual means of dumping and feeding to swine. 

In 1904, a new contract was made by the city with the New 
Bedford Extractor Company, a local corporation working under 
license from the American Extractor Company, of Providence, 
owners of the Wheelwright hot water reduction process, a new 
form for treatment of garbage by reduction. 

This contract was for a term of five years, at the rate of 
$25,000 per year, and included the collection and disposal of the 
garbage and dead animals. The collections were made by a 
sub-contractor, in metal wagons holding about two cubic yards 
each. They are weekly from May to November and bi-weekly 
for the remainder of the year. Each wagon makes two trips 
a day. 

The works of the New Bedford Extractor Company are 
located on the same ground as the abandoned Holthaus plant, 
three miles from the city center. There are three separate 
buildings the garbage house, the extractor house and the boiler 
house, together occupying about 250 x 100 square feet of ground. 



406 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

The garbage house is a brick building and contains four bays, 
which allow four wagons to be unloaded at once, and during this 
time the doors are kept closed to prevent escape of odors. The 
wagons are discharged onto a grating, through which the liquids 





FIG. 92. THE REDUCTION WORKS OF THE AMERICAN EXTRACTOR 
COMPANY. NEW BEDFORD, MASS. 

pass to a cistern below, the metals, rubbish and foreign matters 
are removed by hand. 

The water drained from the garbage is pumped to a hot- 
water tank, from which it is fed into the digesters as needed. 
The inclined steel tube contains a drag chain conveyor which 
elevates the garbage to the upper floor of the main building. This 
tube also acts as an exhaust pipe for drawing foul air from both 
floors of the garbage house. Conected with this, is a second ex- 
haust pipe that withdraws the gases from the feed opening of 
the digesters. 

The garbage is delivered through the pipe and deposited 



THE DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY REDUCTION. 407 

in the digester at the rate of from six to ten tons per hour as 
required, this being precipitated with a small amount of boiling 
water in the bottom of the digester. 

The main building of the plant is of brick and steel construc- 
tion, 60 x 80 feet, and 74 feet high. The stack is 125 feet high. 
This building contains the apparatus for the treatment of the 
garbage, the first of which in the series of operations are the 
digesters. There are two of these, each weighing forty-five 
tons empty and ninety-five tons loaded, and with a capacity of 
thirty tons per day. They are made of cast gun-metal, two 
inches thick, and corrugated on the inside to prevent the stick- 
ing of the garbage to the sides. In the bottom of each digester 
are four 1^2 -inch steam nozzles, through which enters the steam 
for cooking the garbage. 

When ready to be loaded the digesters are partly filled with 
hot water, and then garbage from the conveyor is dumped in 
until they are filled. During the filling the steam jets are oper- 
ated just enough to keep the water at the boiling point. After 
a digester is charged it is sealed and the steam -pressure grad- 
ually raised to twenty-five pounds, at which it is held for a 
period of two and one-half hours. The garbage is cooked under 
pressure for three and one-half hours in summer and four hours 
in winter. 

After the cooking is completed the steam jets are closed and 
the pressure gradually lowered. The steam from the digester 
is blown into the hot-water tank, where it is condensed and 
at the same time heats the garbage water contained therein. 
The use of the garbage water for cooking saves the expense 
of providing other water and at the same time makes it possible 
to extract the grease from it. 

At this point occurs an important operation in the process, 
called the flotation of the grease. Water is pumped into the 
bottom of the tank, and the grease, which floats upon the sur- 
face, is removed by a pipe at the top of the digester to an oil 
separator. The solids are prevented by a grating from getting 
into this pipe. After going through the separator the oil is 
run into settling tanks in an adjacent building and finally into a 
storage tank. A 3-inch pipe runs from the storage tank to a 
railroad switch near by, where the tank cars are loaded. The 



408 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

oil is forced through the pipe under fourteen pounds air pres- 
sure, and 27,000 pounds can be loaded into a car in one hour. 

When the oil has been completely removed the water is drawn 
off, and then the discharge pipe at the bottom of the digester 
is opened and the solid matter pases to the extractor. This con- 
sists of a i6-inch revolving worm inside of a casing, which is 
tight except for openings to carry away the water as it is pressed 
out. The pressing is done by means of mechanically operated 
fins, which press into the threads of the worm, forcing the 
solids against the hub and thus extracting the liquor. This is 
quite different from the method usually employed of pressing 
out the liquid by means of a hydraulic press in an open room, 
whereby odors are occasioned. 

The water thus obtained is conveyed to a settling tank and 
the grease removed by flotation. The solids are carried by a 
closed conveyor to a double steam-jacketed dryer five feet in 
diameter and ten feet long. 

After being dried the tankage, which is brown in appearance 
and somewhat caked, is placed on a conveyor that takes it to a 
disintegrator, where it is finally ground, and then passes to a 
bagging machine, where it is packed ready for shipment. 

The power plant consists of two Kendall boilers of 125-horse- 
power capacity, working under a pressure of eighty pounds ; one 
vertical Westinghouse, Jr., 94-horsepower engine, making 320 
revolutions per minute; one 35O-gallon Knowles service pump 
and one 5OO-gallon fire pump of the same make. A Green 
economizer heats the water for the boilers, spring water being 
used for this purpose and stored in a io,ooo-gallon tank. Water 
used for other purposes is supplied by artesian wells and is 
stored in a 3O,ooo-gallon tank. Between fourteen and fifteen 
tons of coal are used per week. 

A most important feature of this plant is that all apparatus 
from which disagreeable odors might arise are connected to a 
Sturtevant blower. The vapors pass through a condenser and 
thence to the stack, where they mingle with the hot gases and 
from which they emerge high in the air. 

The Superintendent and General Manager of the Company, 
C. K. Wheelwright, gave the following information concerning 
the operation of the plant: 



THE DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY REDUCTION. 409 

Besides the men who accompany the wagons, eight are employed at 
the plant during the day and two at night, with which number we could 
easily handle twice as much garbage as is now received, and would be 
glad to do so because of the increased profits from the by-products. The 
plant is designed to handle 60 tons per day, but at present receives on an 
average only about 18 tons. 

The population of New Bedford is about 80,000 (74,362 in 1905, by the 
State census). There should, therefore, be about 25 tons of garbage a 
day, according to figures obtained in other cities where careful investiga- 
tions have been made. The apparent deficiency is stated to be due to 
the extreme economy of the foreign-born laborers, who constitute a large 
percentage ot the population. 

From each ton of garbage treated there is obtained 400 to 460 Ibs. of 
tankage and from 53 to 60 pounds of grease. The tankage is sold to 
fertilizer companies as a base for fertilizer, and brings from $4 to $12 
per ton, depending upon the amount of ammonia present. The grease is 
sold to soap companies, and is used in the manufacture of the finest 
soaps. In addition to the money derived from the sale of the by-products, 
the company has a contract with the city whereby it receives $25,500 per 
year for the removal and disposal of the garbage. 

(Condensed from Municipal Journal & Engineer, Feb. 26, 
1908). 

The cost of collection and disposal at New Bedford, allow- 
ing 6,000 tons of garbage to be gathered annually, is at the 
rate of $4.16 per ton, or about 31.2 cents per capita per annum. 
This appears to be the highest cost of any city in this country 
using the reduction methods. 

The value of the by-products and the cost of operating, ac- 
cording to the statement of the officers of the company Septem- 
ber 5, 1907, is as follows: 

The New Bedford Extractor Company's plant, working under license 
from the American Extractor Company, has a daily capacity for reducing 
60 tons of garbage in 24 hours. Owing to the requirement of the city 
it was necessary for the company to agree to its contract that the capacity 
should be double the supposed collections, i.e., 30 tons per day. 

The average delivery of garbage to this plant has been only 20 tons 
per working day, but the operation expense is as much as if 30 tons 
per day had been reduced. 

Taking the market prices of the by-products of September I, 1907 
(greases and tankage), a ton of garbage as delivered at the plant equals 

in value $4,282.00 

Actual cost of reduction at New Bedford plant of one ton of 

garbage J[,995-Oo 

Gain per ton $2,287.00 

Twenty tons, 312 days 14,350.88 

Depreciation on 25-ton plant, credit sinking fund. 6,500.00 

$7,850.88 



410 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

Yield of grease 3-34% 

Yield of tankage 15.00% 

Coal per ton garbage reduced, 284 pounds. 

On 30 tons per day cost of reduction per ton would not exceed. . $1.50 

On full capacity of plant it would not exceed i.oo 

AMERICAN EXTRACTOR COMPANY, 
Charles S. Wheelwright, President. 

The statement has been made that the cost of erecting a 
15-ton plant, not including the ground, is about $40,000. It is 
not the intention of the American Extractor Company to erect 
a plant or make money from their construction as builders, but 
to grant licenses to those who do, supplying all necessary plans 
and superintending the erection. 



GARBAGE DISPOSAL BY REDUCTION METHODS.* 
* * * These percentages vary greatly with the geographical 
location of the community, with the season of the year, and with 
the particular kind of season; that is, whether rainy or dry, hot 
or cold. In fact, every change in the natural order of living 
affects to a greater or less extent the above values and their 
relation to one another. For instance, the percentage of ashes 
in our Southern cities is very much lower than in our Northern 
cities; in our Northern cities it is a great deal higher in winter 
than in summer, while in the South it is a fairly constant quan- 
tity throughout the year. 

Then the percentage of garbage will increase materially in 
the summer because of the large increase in vegetable matter 
containd therein. In our Southern cities the percentage of 
grease in the garbage is very low because of the small propor- 
tionate consumption of meats. 

The kind of season influences particularly the quantity of 
garbage; it also influences somewhat the quality of the garbage. 
If for any reason the weather conditions have interfered with 
the growing of melons, sweet corn and fruit, the amount of 
garbage in July, August and September will decrease surpris- 
ingly. On the other hand, if the season has been favorable the 



"Condensed from paper before The Franklin Institute, Philadelphia, by Roht. 
Yarnell, C. E. 



THE DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY REDUCTION. 411 

vegetable matter assumes prodigious proportions in these months. 

It is interesting to note the difference in the quality of the 
garbage in our Eastern cities, its physical as well as chemical 
changes. 

The material collected in Baltimore is very inferior, indeed. 
It contains but a small percentage of grease and a very large 
percentage of rubbish and objectionable matter. Baltimoreans 
seem to live largely on fish foods oysters, crabs, etc. At cer- 
tain seasons the crab shells assume surprisingly large propor- 
tions ; in fact, often at a distance a load of garbage has a decided 
pink color due to the crab shells. 

Philadelphia garbage is in a very much better mechanical state 
than that of Baltimore, but the percentage of grease is much 
lower than in some of the other cities, such as Newark, N. J., 
New York and Brooklyn, although much higher than in. Balti- 
more. The reason for this comparatively low percentage of 
grease in Philadelphia is to be found in the non-enforcement of 
an ordinance barring private collectors of garbage. A recent 
Supreme Court decision has sustained such an ordinance. The 
"hog feeders" go from house to house in the best sections of 
town and to most hotels and boarding houses and collect only 
the best of the material for feeding their swine, and leave for 
the regular collectors the poorer materials, from which material 
only a small percentage of grease, as above stated, can be ex- 
tracted. This practice should be stopped at once, not only 
because of the poor quality of pork produced by swill-fed hogs, 
but because by so doing the city will be able to obtain lower bids 
on the scavenger contracts if the material is to be reduced. 

The garbage collected in New York City is the cleanest con- 
taining the least amount of refuse in any city in the East. The 
reason for this condition is found in the rigid enforcement of the 
law governing separation of the three kinds of waste. The fact 
that the material is richer that is, contains more grease, am- 
monia, potash, etc., per ton in New York City than any other 
Eastern city, with the possible exception of Atlantic City, is 
because of the barring absolutely of all private collectors, and 
also because of the great number of hotels and apartment houses 
from which the waste of foodstuffs per capita is much greater 
than from private households, or from a less thickly populated 



412 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

community where there is an opportunity to scatter the material, 
feed domestic animals, etc. 

It is interesting to note that the garbage collected in New 
York City is comparatively dry and can be stacked on scows 
like hay. 

The garbage from Boston is very wet and sloppy The scows 
which transport the material away from the city to the reduc- 
tion plant have to be provided with high sides to keep the ma- 
terial from running into the bay. It is difficult to explain the 
reason for this condition, but it must be because of some method 
of doing the work about Boston kitchens which differs from that 
employed elsewhere; perhaps the dishwater is added to the gar- 
bage. The yield of grease from the Boston garbage is consider- 
ably less than the yield from New York, but is greater than the 
yield from Philadelphia, perhaps because of the greater con- 
sumption of fish foods, which are poorer in grease than other 
meat foods. 

Concerning the relative merits of incineration and reduction 
methods for the final disposal of this objectionable material much 
has been said and written. The problem is a very complex one, 
indeed. What is a merit in one case is a demerit in another. 
What is advantageous in one city is utterly out of place in an- 
other. But there are certain facts which largely govern a deci- 
sion in all cases. 

Generally speaking, in a city whose population is under the 
100,000 mark, the returns from a reduction method of disposal 
are too small to warrant building a plant, unless the contract 
price paid by the city for the work is high, and the term of con- 
tract long ten years or more. For such cities cremation is 
unquestionably the method to adopt. 

Again, generally speaking, in a city whose population is over 
100,000 reduction should be the method adopted if the cost alone 
is considered. 

Referring for a moment to the sanitary advantages of the two 
systems, it has been demonstrated time and again that a reduc- 
tion plant can be operated near a thickly-populated district with- 
out creating any offense whatever. To cite a case in point, take 
the old plant of the American Product Company on the Schuyl- 
kill River, in this city, not over two miles from the City Hall, 



THE DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY REDUCTION. 413 

and just across the river from the delightful suburban district 
of West Philadelphia. This plant has been in almost continuous 
operation for the past twelve years, and who ever heard of any 
complaint as to its being unsanitary or a menace to public health ? 
If care is taken in the design of a reduction plant, and intelli- 
gence used in its operation, there is absolutely no occasion for 
complaint. 

A crematory can also be conducted in a highly sanitary man- 
ner ; but against most existing plants in this country, at least, / 
complaints have been entered based on the fumes, or from the 
small particles of unburned garbage and dust discharged from 
the stacks. 

Success of both systems, however, from a sanitary standpoint, 
rests almost entirely with the health officers of a city. If they 
are so inclined they can prevent either method from being objec- 
tionable. It is to be expected that the contractor will object ^ 
to any measures imposed by the Board of Health necessitating 
his installing expensive vapor scrubbing or disinfecting devices. 
But such measures, provided they are practicable, can be en- 
forced, and the comfort of the complaining district assured. 

It is pleasing to the medical mind to consider incineration as 
the only sanitary method for the disposal of garbage, because by 
such a method the doctor is reasonably sure of destroying at 
once all microbic organism, together with their common feeding- 
ground. To support him in his theories about incineration, or 
rather by reason of his opinions, there are to be found a great 
number of reports by engineers and others, both foreign and 
domestic, endorsing this method of disposal. It seems to those 
who are acquainted with reduction methods of disposal that 
the opinions of these doctors and engineers have been formed in 
ignorance of such methods. Their ignorance is due to the fact 
that there is practically no literature on the subject of garbage 
reduction and no reliable American data regarding the exact cost 
of reduction, or the value and quantity of products extracted per 
ton of garbage treated, except in the hands of the contractors 
bidding for city contracts, and they naturally do not care to dis- 
close their knowledge. 

It is a fact, however, that may be stated without fear of con- 
tradiction, that the net cost of reducing a ton of garbage is less 



414 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

than the cost of cremating the same quantity. This should be 
apparent to everyone. To burn a ton of garbage, it is first nec- 
essary to evaporate the 80 per cent, of water the garbage con- 
tains. It must be remembered that less than one-third of the 
remaining 20 per cent, of the original ton is combustible. Now, 
under the very best conditions of draft and arrangement of heat- 
ing surface and design of furnace in boiler practice we are able 
to evaporate about ten pounds of water per pound combustible. 
Hence, to burn a ton of garbage coal must be added to it. To 
be sure, it takes coal to make steam to reduce a ton of garbage, 
but to pay for this coal are the products extracted. It may be 
said that if the garbage were not separated 'from the other com- 
bustible light refuse it would require practically no coal to burn 
the mass. But, on the other hand, if this same light combustible 
refuse were separated and taken to the boiler room of the reduc- 
tion plant it could be used to help generate steam for the latter 
process. There should be no uncertainty about these points. 
Given a specific case, results can be accurately predicted. 

When all is considered, as far as sanitation goes, there is very 
little to choose between cremation and reduction of garbage. It 
must be remembered that the raw material, by reason of its 
origin, is subject to rapid decay, and hence in the hot season is 
bound to be obnoxious; and it is from the handling of the raw 
material itself, from the receptacle to the wagon and from the 
wagon to the plant, that complaints arise rather than from the 
plant itself, be it a crematory or a reduction plant. 

It is the object of the reduction plant to obtain every pound 
of garbage that can be collected from the city, because the plant's 
profit depends upon the amount of material treated, the fixed 
charges being very high. Whereas, on the other hand, there is 
practically no profit to be derived from the burning of the gar- 
bage. The collector for the crematory will therefore do every- 
thing in his power to collect as small a quantity as possible and 
not be detected by the municipal authorities. The only revenue 
to be derived from the burning of the garbage he collects is 
from the sale of the ash, but in most cases fertilizer manufac- 
turers do not consider this ash of sufficient value for them to 
cart it away from the plant, let alone pay a price for it, because 
of its poor mechanical condition. 



THE DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY REDUCTION. 415 

It is apparent in the case of the reduction contractor that 
a premium is placed upon honest and efficient collection ; where- 
as, in the case of the burning method of disposal a premium is 
placed upon dishonest service on the part of the collector. Again, 
does it not seem manifestly wrong to burn, up a material which, 
if intelligently treated by an approved process, maintains in a 
community a thriving manufacturing plant? Moreover, is it 
not manifestly wrong to utterly destroy this material when a val- 
uable fertilizer base can be extracted from it by which, after 
properly treating it and distributing it throughout rural com- 
munities, there may be returned to the earth a valuable plant 
food which in due time will bring forth an abundance of fruit 
a point which will be more appreciated, perhaps, as time goes 
on and our soils become further exhausted ? 

Having decided that the garbage will be disposed of by a 
reduction method, it remains to be determined which is the best 
reduction method. All of the reduction processes are for the 
purpose of separating the raw material into four parts rubbish, 
water, grease and tankage. An average sample of garbage, taken 
throughout the year, consists of rubbish 6 per cent., or 120 
pounds per ton of garbage; water 71 per cent., or 1,420 pounds 
per ton of garbage; grease 3 per cent., or 60 pounds per ton of 
garbage. 

The 1 20 pounds of rubbish is composed of a great variety of 
solid waste matter, such as bottles, tin cans, rags, bits of wood, 
shells, etc., which should have been separated and placed in the 
light refuse box by the householder and not mixed with the gar- 
bage; but perfect separation is well nigh impossible to obtain. 
The tin cans, bottles and rags are generally separated from the 
rubbish, as will be explained hereafter, and sold to different 
parties. The cans are put through a detinning and desoldering 
process, the tin and solder finding a ready market, and the iron 
remaining is melted up into sash weights. The bottles that are 
not broken are cleaned and sold to junk dealers to be refilled with 
cheap oils, ketchup, and other food products. The broken glass 
is also separated and is sold at so much a ton. The rags are 
washed, dried and sold to the manufacturers of paper. The 
cans, delivered, bring about $5 per net ton ; the bottles about 



416 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

4 cents per dozen, the broken glass $4 per ton, and the rags 
bring about half a cent a pound. 

The net return from these marketable products is very small 
because of the amount of labor required to separate them and 
prepare them for market. The part that is not salable is gener- 
ally carted away to the dumps, or at certain seasons is burned 
under the boilers in the plant. 

The 1,420 pounds of water in the ton of garbage reduced con- 
tains a considerable quantity of glucose and suspended matter 
and a small percentage of ammonia, but it is of only slight com- 
mercial value and is allowed to run away into the sewer. When 
used at all it is evaporated to the consistency of molasses and 
added to the tankage just before drying, the combination mak- 
ing what is termed "granular tankage" as distinct from "fluffy 
tankage." 

The sixty pounds of grease to the ton of garbage has the 
greatest value of any of the products of reduction. This grease 
is of a comparatively low grade and sells for about 3 cents a 
pound the year round, the price of the grease varying with the 
price of tallow, which, on the basis of garbage grease at 3 cents 
a pound, would sell at 4 cents a pound. It is of a dark brown color 
and has a slight odor of burnt coffee. This grease is used large- 
ly for making soap and candles. The greater part of the Amer- 
ican output of garbage grease is shipped to foreign markets, 
mostly Belgium and France. It doubtless returns to this country 
again in forms which have successfully obliterated their origin 
and which we would scarcely care to own. 

The remaining 400 pounds in the ton of garbage is tankage. 
Tankage is the term used for the solid fibrous matter left after 
the grease and water have been separated in the reduction process. 
It is used, when properly prepared, as a base for fertilizers, as 
it contains small percentages of nitrogen, ammonia, phosphoric 
acid, and potash. 

All the American systems of reduction are either modifications 
of the Arnold, or mechanical system, or the solvent system. 

The solvent system reduces the garbage by first drying it and 
then treating the naphtha or the lighter petroleum oils. This 
solvent takes up the grease in the process and the grease is then 



THE DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY REDUCTION. 417 

recovered by evaporating off the solvent. The latter is condensed 
and used over again in the process. 

The liquids are pressed out through the perforations in the 
apron slats, and flow down into a center drain under the press 
and thence to the catch-basins, where the grease rises to the 
surface and is pumped up into settling tanks to be prepared for 
market. 

The solid matter, or tankage, is discharged from the end of 
the press into a conveyor which carries it either into the boiler 
room, where it is used for fuel, or into the drying department, 
where it is dried down to 10 per cent, moisture and bagged and 
subsequently sold to the manufacturers of fertilizers. The analy- 
sis of this tankage varies greatly in different parts of the country 
and at different seasons of the year. A fair analysis taken right 
from the press would be : 

Per Cent. 

Moisture , 38 to 44 

Grease 5 to 9 

Nitrogen, equivalent to ammonia i . 2 to 2 . 2 

Phosphoric acid, equivalent to bone phosphate of 

lime : 4 . 2 to 7 . 2 

Potash 2 to . 3 

It is always a problem to decide what to do with the tankage 
at a given plant. At times when grease is selling very low and 
coal is high in price and there is small demand for low grade 
ammoniates, it pays to burn it under the boilers. Tankage, how- 
ever, is decidedly inferior fuel because of its low calorific value, 
and also because of very troublesome clinkers that are continually 
forming. Tankage ash is worth $1.50 per ton delivered for the 
fertilizing ingredients it contains. 

If there is a demand for tankage in the fertilizer market it 
pays to dry the material down to 10 per cent, moisture, or com- 
mercially dry, when its analysis should show : 

Per Cent. 

Moisture 10 . 

Ammonia 2.8 

Phosphates 8.5 

Potash 31 

This dry tankage should sell at from $6 to $8 per net ton. 

If the grease market is strong and the price of solvents within 

reason, under certain conditions it is advisable to extract the 



418 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

6 per cent, or 9 per cent, grease which the tankage contains by 
percolating it with solvents, such as the lighter petroleum oils, 
benzine or naphtha, or by the use of carbon bisulphid, or carbon 
tetrachlorid. The latter solvent is non-inflammable, but unless 
diluted with a cheaper solvent its cost is prohibitive. 

The best method of treatment is to first dry the tankage and 
then percolate it, using the same liquor over and over again, 
until it is sufficiently concentrated, when the system is allowed to 
drain into an evaporator which drives off the lighter solvent to 
the condenser, leaving the heavier garbage grease which is pre- 
pared for market. The solvent held by the tankage is recovered 
by the application of heat to the percolating tank. It is interesting 
to note in this connection that the tankage from which the grease 
has been extracted is now of greater value as a fertilizing ma- 
terial. The grease thus extracted, however, is not as valuable as 
that extracted by mechanical means. 

The catch-basin liquor, after the grease has been taken off, 
has very small commercial value because it is so very dilute. 
It contains from .15 to .4 per cent, ammonia, and in some cases 
we have evaporated it down and added the concentrated liquor 
to the tankage during the drying process. This makes a granular 
tankage, which is in greater demand that the fluffy kind, but the 
price obtained is only a little better in fact, is hardly enough to 
pay the cost of evaporation and maintain the evaporators. The 
cost for evaporator repairs is very high because of the acidity 
of the liquor, which attacks both shell and tubes, whether of iron, 
steel, copper or brass. 

The New York garbage plant on Barren Island is the largest 
reduction plant in the world. In the summer months it disposes 
of 3,000 tons of raw material every day. One can scarcely real- 
ize the enormous bulk this tonnage represents without spending 
twenty-four hours on the island in August. The New York 
Board of Health is very vigilant in preventing obnoxious vapors 
arising from this plant because of its close proximity to Rock- 
away Beach and Coney Island. It requires the fumes to be 
washed thoroughly in great scrubbers before discharging them 
into the air. 

About two years ago a disastrous explosion occurred in the 
Boston plant. One is never sure just what ingredients form 



THE DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY REDUCTION. 419 

the conglomeration with which the digesters are filled, and in 
this case an excessive pressure was formed in one of the tanks 
from an unknown cause and the explosion resulted, completely 
wrecking the building. 

The records of the quantity of garbage treated at various 
reduction plants are interesting when examined together. The 
fluctuation in volume and character from month to month is 
fairly parallel the yield highest in August and September 
except in the case of Boston, where the greatest yield is in 
winter, due probably to the greater proportionate summer exodus 
of the leisure class. The antithesis of this is observed in the 
plotted curve of quantity at Atlantic City, which has a great 
peak in the middle of August, the height of the vacation sea- 
son, as would be expected from such a resort. 

The character of the product varies also; but, unfortunately 
for the reduction plant, the value of the material expressed in 
terms of grease is much lower per ton when the quantity handled 
is the greatest. 

These records show that a reduction plant should be made 
sufficiently large to handle the peak of the load in July, August 
and September, although during the remainder of the year, in 
most cases, two-thirds of the plant must remain inoperative. 
Moreover, when this great bulk of garbage is being treated the 
yield of grease the principal source of revenue is least, which 
is certainly an unsatisfactory condition from a manufacturer's 
standpoint. This explains the fact that the garbage reduction 
contractor cannot undertake such a contract without being paid 
a bonus by the city. 



PART V. 

THE UTILIZATION OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 
CHAPTER XVIII. 

REVENUE FROM WASTE MATERIALS METHODS OF UTILIZATION. 

The first question asked by a municipal officer when consider- 
ing the disposal of waste is "What will it cost?" He may after- 
ward ask what benefits are to be derived from the proposed 
process, but in the first instance the expense is to him the chief 
consideration. The Mayor, the city officials and the members 
of the City Council are the ones who have the control of the 
department of municipal work, which includes the collection and 
disposal of all wastes. Up to within the last few years this 
department of municipal service has received less attention than 
almost any other, but the pressure brought to bear upon these 
gentlemen by the people acting through the various civic organ- 
izations, leagues and other associations for the improvement of 
the city, have made it imperative that there should be better 
attention paid and more money expended for the treatment of 
waste than has been done in the past. 

It is a gratifying instance of progress to note that many cities 
are really endeavoring to obtain some accurate information from 
the tabulation of their own statistics, and are trying to bring 
themselves into line with the advanced methods, which have suc- 
ceeded in bettering the conditions in other towns that make a 
more creditable showing in this branch of civic work. 

It has been said that "utilization is the keynote of successful 
policy in large cities," and there is no department where utiliza- 
tion theories can be so practically demonstrated as in the treat- 
ment of the municipal waste. It was said by Colonel Waring 
in relation to the wastes of New York that there was annually 
thrown away in the discarded matter a sum of money sufficient 
to pay for the collection and disposal of the wastes of the city. 
This was looked upon at the time as being a glittering generality 

420 



THE UTILIZATION OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 421 

impossible of realization, a mere dream that could never come 
to pass. But in the three years' service of Colonel Waring he 
demonstrated that it was not entirely a theoretical idea, but one 
that could be carried out if it were attempted with thorough 
knowledge of the requirements, a sufficient amount of money to 
do the work, and the aid of a Mayor and Council who would 
support reforms. 

Utilization of refuse, which Colonel Waring began, and which 
in his short term of office brought in a return that was sufficient 
to pay the expenses of the refuse collection service in the dis- 
trict where this was employed, was discontinued by his successor, 
and was not revived until another reform administration assumed 
the reins of government. The efforts made in the past four 
years for the recovery of the marketable portions of the refuse 
and rubbish in New York City have shown that there is a value 
which not only pays expenses of recovery but returns a revenue 
if the work is properly conducted. This revenue can be utilized 
in two ways: First, by sorting it and saving such parts of the 
refuse as are marketable for making paper, and second, by 
burning the volume collected and utilizing the heat. 

THE UTILIZATION OF REFUSE BY SORTING. 

The actual cash value of paper stock in New York City is 
to-day higher than it has ever before been known to be. Every- 
thing which is valuable for turning into paper pulp is eagerly 
bought by the various agencies that deal in this material. 

The amount of refuse and rubbish discarded from the houses 
in the larger cities of the United States is enormous in volume, 
as, for instance, in New York City it is 936 pounds per capita 
per annum. In Boston the quantities are about 600 pounds, and 
in Buffalo available records show that the proportions were still 
larger. These quantities will probably be found in all the larger 
Northern towns and increase in the places where natural gas is 
used for household fuel. 

The value of paper is at the present time quoted at the net 
sum of about $4.50 per ton for the lowest grade of crushed 
newspaper delivered at the cars for transportation to the paper 
mills. The better grades of paper bring higher prices. Every 
form of rags suitable for use by paper makers find a ready 



422 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

market. There is no reason to believe that these prices will be 
any less, and it would seem to be a measure of economy in every 
city where this waste is available to turn it to some purpose 
of revenue, which can easily be done by following the methods 
already introduced in four of the largest cities of establishing 
refuse utilization stations. 

THE SANITARY SIDE OF THE QUESTION. 
Objections have been made to the separation of salable articles 
from rubbish on the ground of possible communication of con- 
tagion to the persons engaged in the separation. The argument 
is that everything that comes from the house should be destroyed 
in order to prevent any chance of the spread of contagious dis- 
eases, and also because the light rubbish or refuse from the 
houses contains a large proportion of sweepings and other dirt 
which must be destroyed. The records of utilization plants do 
not show that any disease has ever been contracted in this work, 
and' when it is done by the aid of machinery, with the proper 
appliances, the employees are in no danger of contagion if the 
sanitary regulations for operating the plant are enforced. 

THE USES OF RUBBISH FOR POWER DEVELOPMENT. 
Some authorities have claimed that the rubbish and refuse 
from the city should never be sorted or separated, but should be 
promptly destroyed by fire, and the heat derived therefrom be 
utilized for the disposal of other parts of municipal waste. They 
therefore advocate a separate collection of the refuse and rub- 
bish and its being brought to a disposal station where it may be 
destroyed without sorting. The work done in New York City 
at the two incinerators during the past four years has shown 
that there is undoubtedly great value in the heat to be derived 
from this operation, amounting to the evaporation of one and 
one-half to two pounds of water per pound of refuse and rub- 
bish destroyed. Three large disposal plants in other cities are 
now sorting out and recovering the valuable portions of the 
refuse, and employ the remainder as fuel, and have been operated 
for four, five and ten years respectively, returning large revenues 
to the companies employing this means. But in the case of each 
of these companies the revenue comes in the largest degree from 
the sorting and not from the power. The value of this material 



THE UTILIZATION OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 423 

as fuel depends upon its quantity, since it must be continuously 
on hand to be supplied to the furnace. If the refuse is very 
light it burns with great rapidity and the heat is passed into the 
chimney without being utilized. If the rubbish is wet or moist 
it burns more slowly and the heat-raising power is decreased. 
If it is- received in quantities too small for maintaining con- 
tinuous combustion it is of small value for raising steam, as it 
fluctuates greatly. At the best, refuse or rubbish in small 
amounts must be looked upon only as an auxiliary to be used 
in conjunction with more stable forms of fuel. 

Whether it is equal to consuming wet masses of garbage has 
yet to be demonstrated. By the American crematory method of 
burning light refuse in a part of the furnace, there is very little 
actual benefit derived from the heat, which quickly passes off, 
acting only upon the surface of the wet masses of garbage lying 
adjacent. On the other hand, when refuse and garbage are 
mixed together and burned under the action of forced draft 
the combustion is much more efficient and the results in steam 
raising are greater. This is the method which is required by 
some engineers in their latest specifications for destructors 
burning garbage and refuse together under a powerful blast of 
hot air or steam. By this means all the heat units contained in 
the garbage, as well as those of the lighter forms of refuse, 
will be utilized. 

THE PAPER MANUFACTURED IN THE UNITED STATES. 

The United States is the greatest paper producing country 
in the world, the annual output being upward of 640,000 tons. 
In the local consumption of paper this country also leads, with 
an annual figure of 38.6 pounds per capita, England consuming 
34.3 pounds, Germany 29.98 pounds, France 20.5 pounds, Aus- 
tria 19 pounds, Italy 15.4 pounds. Nearly one-half of the paper 
manufactured in the world is used for printing purposes. Twen- 
ty per cent, is absorbed in the trades and industries, an equal pro- 
portion is applied for official and school purposes, and the re- 
maining 10 per cent, serves the demand for private uses. 

A late book on the manufacture of paper gives a list of 860 
different substances that have been used in manufacturing paper 
stock. Of these the soft woods are the most valuable and easiest 



424 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

obtained. They are the alder, aspen, poplar, willow, fir. 
spruce, birch, white pine and chestnut. The amount of wood 
fibre or cellulose, which is the pulp-making element, ranges in 
these woods from 33 to 39 per cent, of the whole volume of 
the wood, but as this is obtained only from the trunk and larger 
limbs of the tree, the waste is enormous. 

One writer in a monthly journal gives some startling figures 
showing the "Slaughter of the Trees" of the American forests 
for paper-making. He says "Some one has figured that a big 
Sunday newspaper needs twenty acres of pulp wood to make 
the paper for one edition. The Chicago Tribune, a chance in- 
stance, uses 200,000 pounds of paper each Sunday, or 400,000 
pounds each week. A ton of paper takes about two cords of 
spruce in the making to be exact, about 1,750 pounds of paper 
pulp not allowing anything for waste. 

"The average stand of spruce pulp wood in the regions where 
it is cut is probably about ten cords per acre. If it costs twenty 
acres a Sunday, or forty acres a week, and 2,080 acres a year 
to print one daily newspaper, what does it cost in acreage to 
print all the newspapers in all the cities and towns of America? 
Add to this the paper used in books and the enormous editions 
of our magazines and the total staggers the imagination." 

A few months ago, when the advance in printing paper was 
made by the companies controlling the wood pulp manufacturing 
interests, it was claimed and shown that the deforestation was 
proceeding at so rapid a rate that the -supply of wood suitable 
for manufacture in the United States would soon be exhausted. 
These statements emphasize the necessity for not only conserv- 
ing the forest to be used in the future manufacture of paper, 
but also demonstrates that every form of material suitable for 
the manufacture of various classes of paper should be saved 
for this work. 

In the larger Eastern cities there are many agencies for saving 
the paper waste. The perambulating junkman goes from house 
to house, begging, sometimes paying for the various classes of 
paper until he has collected a load. In New York City the 
people freely deliver it to the Salvation Army, which makes a 
business of collecting paper and other marketable refuse waste 
for the benefit of their fund for improving the conditions of 



THE UTILIZATION OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 425 

the poor. A much larger percentage is annually collected than 
is generally known. The paper from shops and stores is largely 
collected by private parties who receive this as a bonus for 
removing ashes from the premises. 

All of these agencies, taken together, are working for the col- 
lection and sale of this form of municipal refuse, and all are 
presumably receiving a sufficient revenue from the work not 
only to pay expenses but to make a profit. If the forests of 
the country now being swept off by the wood pulp industry shall 
disappear, manifestly it is only a part of municipal wisdom to 
turn to some useful purpose the printing and other forms of 
paper which have once seen service and which may repeatedly 
be renewed and transformed into salable forms of paper for 
future use 

THE COMMERCIAL VALUE OF GARBAGE. 

The reports of the reduction processes previously noted show 
there is a value in garbage of American towns when this is 
treated by itself for recovery of commercial products. The 3 per 
cent, (sixty pounds) of grease in a ton of separated garbage, 
with a comparatively steady value of 3 to 3^2 cents per pound, 
makes this item worth saving, if it can be done at not too great 
a cost. The tankage is of uncertain value, dependent upon con- 
ditions not always under the control of the manufacturers, hence 
the returns from this source are not to be reckoned as constant. 
It has a fuel value equal to about one-sixth of its weight in coal, 
and can always be burned under the boilers of the plant, but 
with a certainty of rapid deterioration of the boiler tubes and 
fittings. 

The chief difficulty in marketing the tankage seems to be 
its storage when prices are low, to await a rise. Because of 
its liability to spontaneous combustion when reduced by the 
naphtha process it cannot be long held in bulk without great 
danger of fire. When reduced by steam process it is probably 
less dangerous, but is still very inflammable and readily de- 
teriorates and putrefies. In short, it must be used quickly if 
at all, or be burned for fuel if not marketed: The reports of 
forty or more reduction plants in this country, all with scarcely 
a single exception, contain records of explosions and fires, more 



426 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

or less costly, and seemingly beyond the power of the owners to 
prevent. The most rigid regulations for safety from fire appear 
to be of little protection. The values to be had from garbage 
when manufactured depends greatly upon the nearness of a 
market for the grease and tankage. If far distant, the cost of 
transportation cuts down the margins, and if the quantities 
produced be small, the storage and handling counts up fast 
against the profits. 

THE COSTS OF REDUCTION. 

It seems to be conceded that only when the quantities of 
separated garbage are seventy-five tons or upward daily, can 
the work be made to pay as a business venture, unless there be 
a subsidy from the municipality. One writer says in no place 
of less than 150,000 population can garbage reduction plants be 
operated successfully. Another puts the lowest profitable figure 
of population at 100,000, meaning upon a strictly business basis, 
without payment by the city for disposal. 

These statements are borne out by the results so far as shown 
by the evidence at hand, since all plants where the work has been 
done for the profit alone have heretofore failed, and in other 
cases, where the quantities are small from twenty-five to fifty 
tons daily the plant must have the subsidy from the town to 
continue its work. This argument has always been advanced 
when contracts for reduction were pending, and as the costs of 
the work and the profits or losses were trade secrets jealously 
guarded, the towns have, under pull, or influence, or a carefully 
exaggerated idea of the great sanitary value of this means of 
disposal, granted concessions for a term of years at greater cost 
to the town than were asked by other methods of disposal. 

There was at first an erroneous idea that the reduction methods 
were very profitable to investors, and many companies were 
capitalized for operating in the larger cities under concessions 
that required the towns to pay but a small sum from 50 cents 
to 60 cents per ton for the disposal of the garbage. It presently 
appeared that the returns were not sufficient to pay expenses, 
much less dividends, and when the works took fire, as they mostly 
did, and were destroyed they were not replaced. 

Some of the processes that involved the manufacture of a 



THE UTILIZATION OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 427 

complete fertilizer by the addition of nitrates and phosphates to 
the tankage could not compete with the regular standard fertilizer 
of the same grades, and they disappeared from the field. For 
nearly eight years the reduction work was in the hands of two 
processes or methods, alike in the main principles of treatment, 
but differing in minor details of apparatus, and in these years 
there was almost universal complaints of nuisance from the 
work. 

Not until about 1905, when the older companies had improved 
their methods and apparatus, and new companies appeared with 
more rapid and more thorough methods of extracting the oil 
and drying the tankage, and with greater attention to the sani- 
tary operation of the work, did the process methods make 
progress. 

With improved machinery and methods there came a sharper 
competition. The veteran corporations that had for successive 
terms of years in the large Eastern cities held the undisputed 
control at their own figures, were opposed by the later comers, 
all ambitious to acquire a foothold in the profitable work. 

Up to this time there was but little accurate information to 
be had as to the real results in a pecuniary way from the work. 
The contract prices at which the awards were made for five- 
year terms were always large enough to insure the expenses of 
the works, leaving the profit, which was dependent upon the 
quality of the oil and tankage manufactured, and the market 
demand for these, to represent the profit of the stockholders. 

MUNICIPAL REDUCTION PLANTS AND RESULTS. 

The sale of the reduction works in Cleveland, which com- 
prised two separate processes, to the city, and the operation of 
the plant by the city for the last six months of 1905 greatly 
interested other towns that were about to install disposal works. 

For the first time it was then shown that reduction methods 
could be made to pay the operating costs under municipal owner- 
ship. The 'succeeding years, 1906 and 1907, were still more suc- 
cessful demonstrations of the value of reduction methods hon- 
estly conducted for the benefit of the municipality. What this- 
year will show is still undetermined, but with greater experience 
in management, with the improvement in apparatus already made 



428 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

by the city's engineers, and with a better equipment and system 
in collection service there is every reason to believe that the 
revenue from the municipal garbage reduction plant will not fall 
below the returns of the previous year. 

This is an instance of municipal ownership and administra- 
tion for the benefit of the people that may well be studied by 
other American cities. 

The example of Cleveland is not lost upon other cities. St. 
Louis, that for twenty years had paid a company $1.80 per ton 
for reducing its garbage, now contracts for the same work under 
more favorable conditions for 27 cents per ton. Columbus, that 
for many years had a part of this work done for 50 cents per 
ton, at a loss to the company, and was unable to get satisfactory 
terms from any reduction process companies, is now building its 
own plant for garbage reduction. 

Undoubtedly these examples will lead to the establishment of 
many reduction plants, the more so as the patents involved do 
not seem to be of any serious consideration to anybody wishing 
to enter the field, and it is quite possible that the earlier dis- 
astrous experiences of the experimental stages, and failures of 
ambitious and inexperienced builders, may be repeated. It seems 
almost impossible for these methods to get a foothold in the 
Dialler towns where the quantities of separated garbage are 
small. During the past year three plants of small capacity have 
been discontinued, and none of the same capacity have been built 
elsewhere. 

The treatment of American separated garbage for recovery of 
the commercially valuable constituents has now become a stable 
and accepted fact in American disposal work, one to be here- 
after recognized as an available means for municipal service in 
the larger cities, and while these methods cannot always be profit- 
ably employed at all places, owing to geographical or communal 
limitations, it is certain they may be made useful in a large num- 
ber of American towns. 

THE CREMATORY METHODS OF WASTE DISPOSAL. 

The primary purpose of any apparatus for waste disposal is 
the destruction of waste matter. From the viewpoint of most 
town officials in charge of waste disposal that means is best 



THE UTILIZATION OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 7 429 

which most quickly and most cheaply does the work. Hence, 
anything that will give temporary relief, and push the final solu- 
tion to another's shoulders, receives more attention and has a 
better chance for adoption than another means which is proven 
more efficient and will give better results for a longer term, but 
at higher cost for apparatus. 

Thus, in America.n towns the destroyal of garbage by fire was 
at first done in small cheaply built furnaces that required con- 
stant supply of fuel, and were at great expense for repairs and 
renewal of plant. Afterward, when the refuse of the town was 
burned at the dumping places, giving rise to volumes of nauseous 
smoke, this waste was brought to the crematories, which were 
then made larger for the double work. There was still the need 
of fuel, for the crematory construction was not well adapted to 
retain and utilize the heat from the combustible matters. 

The increased volume of garbage and refuse demanded much 
larger furnaces at greater cost for buildings and more men for 
operating. Thus, the expenses of the installations have nearly 
doubled those of the earlier years, without a proportional in- 
crease in capacity or efficiency of the plant or of its sanitary 
performance. 

In the larger cities the disposal of garbage by the crematory 
has met with very unsatisfactory results. The largest plants now 
operating, of four different types of construction, do not give 
results that correspond with the contracts under which they were 
built. The incinerators at Atlanta and Los Angeles, built under 
a stipulation to burn 200 tons per day, are not able to destroy 
more than one-half the amount. The 140-ton incinerator at 
Winnipeg has never yet been able to meet the contract condi- 
tions as to quantity and cost, and is not accepted by the city. 

The loo-ton plant at Tampa has never been called upon to 
destroy the required quantity in continuous work. The cremator 
at Milwaukee has never met the specifications of amounts 
destroyed, Or costs of operating. The incinerator at Montreal 
does not consume the specified quantities, and the operating costs 
are more than double the contract's requirements. These are 
the largest garbage furnaces now working under municipal man- 
agement, and in each case the guaranteed quantities and the 
operating costs have not yet been fulfilled. 



430 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

The smaller crematories and incinerators are in a similar posi- 
tion with respect to capacity and expense of operating, though 
in some few cases the contract for capacity is more nearly met, 
but the actual operating costs are always greater than the guar- 
antees if taken over a period of a year. When a trial under the 
best conditions approaches the operating costs according to con- 
tract, it is assumed that this is the operating cost for all other 
furnaces of this make at all places, and contracts are acquired 
under the promise to do similar work that never are fulfilled, 
nor were expected to be fulfilled when they were made. 

The contractor takes the chance of getting his furnace ac- 
cepted under a guarantee of low costs of operating, largely be- 
cause of the indefinite way in which the amounts and character 
of the waste to be burned is stated by the town, or if no state- 
ment of quantities and character is given, then, upon the pre- 
sumption that these will agree with his own estimate of what are 
the amounts and kind of waste to be destroyed. He makes his 
own estimate, guarantees the cost of disposal, and when he comes 
short of the guarantees, sets up a claim that his conditions are 
not met, threatens litigation, and finally compromises upon some 
basis that gives the town the possession of a plant that is not sat- 
isfactory. Then, the contractor having received the highest price 
for his plant under his promise of lowest operating cost, and 
usually being paid a large proportion of his price before trial, 
leaves the town with a more or less comfortable margin of profit, 
and departs to seek fresh fields and other confiding municipal 
officials. 

Sometimes, but infrequently, this programme is interrupted 
by the demand of the town that the contracts be fulfilled, and 
then there is trouble, ending in cancellation of the contract and 
return of payments made or a compromise that leaves both parties 
dissatisfied. Better engineering advice and more care in prepar- 
ing the first specifications, with more definite statements of quan- 
tities and character of waste, and more rigid and exact conditions 
for construction and working costs over a period long enough to 
get a knowledge of what is really accomplished, would go far to 
obtain better results and avoid the mistakes of the years past. 

Disposal by crematories and incinerators is an absolute outgo 
for expenses of construction of large plants, for the cost of fuel 



THE UTILIZATION OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 431 

and labor to operate them, with no return of anything of value 
from the work. 

UTILIZATION OF WASTE BY DESTRUCTORS FOR STEAM POWER. 

In contrast with the crematories and incinerators that receive 
the garbage and refuse on large areas of grate surface, that 
proceed by a slow process of drying and burning at low tempera- 
tures with the aid of extra fuel, and that obtain no residuum of 
any value, are to be placed the destructor methods that proceed 
by receiving and temporarily storing the same amounts of waste, 
either in a separated or a mixed condition, and burn this upon 
smaller area of fire grates, at a far higher temperature, in no 
longer time with no added fuel, with a residuum of vitrified 
clinker useful for many purposes, and with the production of 
steam power that, when utilized, reduces the cost of operation to 
a figure impossible to be obtained by any other means. 

A comparison of these two methods when applied to the 
American conditions will naturally suggest some points common 
to both, which may be stated thus : 

(a) Area of ground required: For destructor 20 per cent, less than 
for incinerators. 

(b) Initial cost of plant complete: For municipal work, in quantities of 
30 tons up to 75 tons daily, the cost for destructor plant is 15 per cent, 
more than for incinerators. This is for the added boiler and machinery 
equipment. 

(c) Capacity of plant: A reserve capacity for the same relative quanti- 
ties in favor of destructor because of storage of waste and more econom- 
ical use of time in disposal. 

(d) Durability of construction: Is greatly in favor of destructors, as 
proven by continuous work of more than 300 destructors against the in- 
termittent work of 180 crematories or incinerators, of which over one-half 
are discontinued. 

(e) Temperatures attained: In destructors the minimum is 1250 F., 
the maximum 2000 to 2700, the average 1500 to 1900. This destroys, 
within the furnace, all consumable gaseous compounds. In crematories 
and incinerators the initial temperature at the fire box rarely attains 
1500, with a continuous loss of heat for every foot of distance to the 
chimney. 

(f) The addition of fuel is not required in destructors, but is a necessity 
in all crematories. 

(g) The gases of combustion are consumed by the destructors within 



432 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

the furnace; in crematories and incinerators they are incompletely de- 
stroyed in their rapid passage over fume cremators. 

(h) The power developed by destructors is an asset or revenue, but in 
crematories and incinerators the heat is passed direct to the chimney and 
lost. 

(i) The residuums of destructor work are vitrified clinkers useful for 
several departments of municipal service. The soft ashes from crematories 
have no value except for filling ground. 

(j) The scope of usefulness of destructors covers every form of mu- 
nicipal waste that fire will affect ; the crematories can deal only with gar- 
bage, but are not able to burn or attempt to convert house ashes into 
power. 

OPERATING COSTS. 

There has been much misrepresentation of the facts concern- 
ing the operating costs of American crematories. As before 
stated, when preliminary trials are made under the control of 
the builders the expense of operating sometimes very nearly 
approaches the guaranteed costs, but not in many cases is this 
point reached. But when the cost of operating these crematories 
is taken for one year's time it invariably results in expenses being 
much greater than the guaranteed cost. An examination of the 
work done by the American crematories over a period of over 
twenty years makes it very clear that the actual cost for destroy- 
ing garbage and refuse, when fuel is necessary, will approximate 
the sum of 50 cents per ton, and this may be taken as the lowest 
price which can be reasonably expected in all yearly periods of 
the work covering the successful operations of the garbage 
crematories. 

Statements made that the garbage can be destroyed at 22 cents 
to 35 cents per ton for operating costs and labor and fuel are 
not borne out by facts. If we assume an average price of coal 
at $4.50 to $5 per ton, the costs for disposal will certainly rise 
to nearly 50 cents per ton for actual expenses. 

The operating costs of destructors, so far as is demonstrated 
by the four installations now at work, run from 50 to 70 cents 
per ton for actual expense of labor. This is because there is 
required a steam engine foreman competent to run a boiler, 
whose wages are higher than the ordinary attendant. The re- 
port previously noted from Vancouver is an example of this case. 
Here the garbage and refuse is destroyed by destructor servic : 



THE UTILIZATION OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 433 

with no utilization of the power, and the cost approximates 56 
cents per ton. 

The use of the same apparatus of the modern high temperature 
destructor disposing of garbage mixed with refuse under forced 
draft will in American cities be found to perform the work at 
a cost not to exceed from 50 to 60 cents. Now, when a credit 
is made for the development of power which is produced by 
the destructor, the operating costs will fall from 50 cents to 
30 cents or less per ton. 

It must be borne in mind that these figures do not include ex- 
penses of depreciation or capital charges on the cost of the plant. 

There is no doubt but what the work in this country can be 
brought to the same ratio of expense as is done abroad, but it 
must be remembered that the cost of wages here is about double 
what is paid to the same class of labor in England. Therefore, 
the operating expenses must be larger when compared with 
destructors in other countries. 

THE UTILIZATION OF MUNICIPAL ASHES. 

The preceding tables and comments thereon bring out the fact 
that there is undeveloped value in ashes removed from the house- 
holds of the people. This is particularly true of the ashes of 
anthracite coal. Some part of this coal is now recovered from 
the dumps by that class of the people who make dump-picking 
their livelihood. Among the many articles which can be recov- 
ered, the coal is probably the most valuable item, and of this only 
a small per cent, of the total quantity is saved, as the most part 
is in too small fragments to be picked up. But when the fine 
dustlike ashes are taken out by screens, and the coal and clinker 
afterward separated, then the volume and value of the coal is 
clearly apparent. 

This has been tried at one city where the waste disposal works 
by incineration receives the mixed mass and separates the fine 
ash before combustion. 

The real value of municipal ashes as applied to many purposes 
is well illustrated in the following paper by a gentleman whose 
labors in this field of sanitary engineering have extended over 
a long period, and whose opinion may be taken as the latest 
expression on the value and uses of this form of municipal waste. 



434 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

UTILIZATION OF CITY ASHES BY C. HERSCHEL KOYL, CON- 
SULTING ENGINEER. 

Clean anthracite ash should be an article of commerce and 
not a city waste. 

It contains on the average 45 per cent, fine ash, 30 per cent, 
clinker and stone, and 25 per cent, unburned coal, much of it 
untouched by fire. 

The fire ash can be made cheaply into excellent brick and mor- 
tar ; the clinker and stone are first-class material for fireproof 
floors and for the frost-proof beds of sidewalks and yard pave- 
ments; the coal has a fuel value 75 per cent, that of new coal, 
and for some purposes is better. 

The above statement presupposes the possibility of separating 
these substances from each other. This is no longer difficult, 
and no more costly than the original mining of coal and its sep- 
aration from slate, while this latter separation has the advantage 
of being made at the doors of the market instead of a couple of 
hundred miles away, and of leaving no waste product. 

The separation cannot well be made by the family, because of 
the dust and the small value recoverable from a single fire. It 
must be made by machinery and on a large scale. But the family 
can keep its ashes clean, and the city must do the same, for it 
is not easy to separate a mixture of ashes, street sweepings, 
newspapers and bed-springs. The plan is practicable in any city 
using hard coal, and populous enough to warrant a separate 
collection of ashes say a city of 100,000 people. 

Statistics of the Borough of Manhattan, New York City, will 
serve for general illustration : 

The population is, say 2,200,000 

The ashes collected, say (tons) 1,500,000 

The latter consisting of : 

Fine ash (tons) 675,000 

Clinker and stone (tons) 450,000 

Coal recoverable (tons) , 375,ooo 

1,500,000 

The weight of each of these is approximately one ton per cubic 
yard. 

Coal is the most valuable and most readily salable product of 
the separation. It is surprising to find in the ash so much coal 



THE UTILIZATION OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 435 

indistinguishable from that fresh from the mine. It is of all 
sizes from furnace down, but is mostly nut. The mechanical 
process of separation is so exact that not only can the coal be 
separated from the clinker and stone, but the fire-marked coal 
can be separated from the unmarked. 

Nearly half of the product is coal salable at the price of new, 
and I estimate the average selling price of the recovered coal at 
three-quarters that of new coal in the same city. The total cost 
of separation is less than one dollar per ton of recovered coal 
(the operating expenses being about twenty-five cents), and if 
the total cost of the separation be charged to the coal the profit 
will be the difference between this and three-quarters of the 
wholesale price of new coal in the place in question. In New 
York the profit should not be. less than $2 per ton. 

The uses of clinker and stone may be illustrated as follows: 

There is necessary under sidewalks, flagging and cellar floors 
a substratum of loose, dry material which will not readily bring 
up the water of the underlying earth, and which in winter will 
not readily be affected by frost, since its porosity will furnish 
room for internal expansion. It has been customary for some 
time to lay such walks with a substratum of from four to eight 
inches of clinker, and men in the business say that nothing else 
is so satisfactory for the purpose, and that nothing else would be 
used if clinker were always available. 

There is laid annually in Manhattan not far from 900,000 sq. 
ft. of new sidewalk, and about as much more in flagging and 
cement walks for rear yards ; and the annual area of new cellar 
floor is not far from 8,500 sq. ft., which makes a total of 10,- 
300,000 sq. ft., and this if underlaid to a depth of six inches 
would require 5,150,000 cubic feet, or 190,000 cubic yards of 
clinker. 

Use in Fireproof Floors. The most extensive present use of 
clinker, however, is in the construction of fireproof floors of 
large office buildings, warehouses, and the first stories of all 
apartment and tenement houses more than four stories in height. 
Here the steel floor-beams are from 10 to 15 inches deep to 
afford sufficient carrying capacity; the support is completed by 
brick arches which rest upon the flanges of the beams, and the 
upper portion of such floors, to a depth of about six inches, is 



436 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

filled in with clinker, preferably, and always when it is procur- 
able. A large office building requires more than 5,000 cubic 
yards of clinker. The total annual amount of such new floor 
space in Manhattan is about 600,000 cubic yards, and there is 
not enough clinker to fill it. 

Utilisation of Fine Ash in Building. There are several meth- 
ods of making up fine anthracite ash into brick, mortar, mortar- 
board and material for interior decoration. The ash must be 
finely sifted but the results are always good. The cheapest 
method is to combine ash with a small proportion of freshly 
slaked lime, press it, and if it is properly made get next day a 
brick which in all essentials is the equal of ordinary red brick, 
and which makes a stronger wall because ash-mortar is stronger 
than lime-sand mortar. The ash must be fine, and the best re- 
sults are obtained by the intimate mixture with lime by a ma- 
chine, on the order of machine-mixed lime-sand mortar now so 
extensively used. 

Of course, a new building material must win its way, but it 
is a safe statement that if ash-mortar proves to have greater 
strength and more enduring qualities than lime-sand mortar it 
will be welcomed as a substitute by architects, and if it can be 
furnished at a. less price it will be welcomed by builders. The 
field is large because ash-lime is lighter, stronger and cheaper 
than lime-sand for mortar, mortar-board and plaster. 

The present law in many places is that "mortar shall be made 
from clean, sharp sand," but this is merely a protection for the 
public against "mud" mortar, and if ash-mortar proves better 
than mortar made from "clean, sharp sand" the law can undoubt- 
edly be amended to include also the better material. 

From present indications I see no reasons to doubt the early 
and extended use of fine anthracite ash for various building pur- 
poses, and, as I have said in another place, "it will be the perfec- 
tion of 'waste* utilization to build dwelling houses in June from 
the dwelling house ash of May." 



UTILIZATION OF WASTE BY GAS PRODUCER METHODS. 

In January, 1900, when the merger of the gas, electric light 
and power companies in New York City was about to be con- 



THE UTILIZATION OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 437 

summated, and these interests brought under one management for 
self-protection and to avoid competition, the question of obtain- 
ing power from the city's waste for the uses of the consolidated 
stations was brought forward in the public press. Many com- 
munications on the subject were printed, among them two letters 
from eminent engineers, which gave clear ideas of the possibilities 
of these means of disposal and waste utilization, and showed 
what might be done not only in New York but also in all the cities 
of this country. 

The two letters referred to, those of Mr. George Westing- 
house and Prof. R. H. Thurston, are given below: 

THE GAS AND POWER MERGER. 
To the Editor of The New York Times: 

The bringing together of the gas and electric light and power interests 
in New York should result in great advantages to the public and to the 
interests^so combined, provided the latest developments in gas and electric 
engineering are investigated and availed of. Among the numerous ques- 
tions affecting the health, comfort, and convenience of the citizens of New 
York (and of all communities, in fact) are three of especial impor- 
tance, viz. : 

The disposal of garbage, the abatement of the smoke nuisance due to 
the increasing use of bituminous coal for steam power purposes, and the 
securing of an adequate supply of water. 

From statistics there appear to be created daily in New York about 
500 tons of garbage, or at the rate of one-half pound per capita. Such 
garbage is about 20 per cent, carbon and 80 per cent, water. By a process 
which has been well demonstrated on a small scale, and which is being 
rapidly brought to a commercial basis, all of this garbage can "be economi- 
cally, and without offensive odor, converted into a fuel gas of great value. 
In the same apparatus and by the same process soft coal can be made into 
a gas suitable for power and heating purposes. 

The fuel gas made from garbage and soft coal can be used to drive gas 
engines with electric generators, and the electricity thus produced can be 
used for light and to drive motors to the exclusion of the thousands of 
steam engines and boilers which make such demands upon the water 
supply, since the gas engine central stations can be so located that the 
water needed for engine-cooling purposes can be taken from the river. 

Bearing upon these questions, and of especial importance, are the par- 
tially executed plans of the electric power and light corporations, viz., the 
Metropolitan, Third Avenue, and Manhattan Elevated Railways, and the 
New York Gas and Electric Light, Heat and Power Company and the 
United Electric Light and Power Company. If their present plans, which 
are fairly well known to the engineering profession, are carried to com- 
pletion, each will have one large steam station on the East River between 
Twenty-ninth Street and the Harlem River, with about 75,000 horsepower 
6f engines, boilers, and electric machinery, making an aggregate of 375,000 
horsepower, and which may be largely increased when the underground 
rapid transit railway is completed, and still further when the electric 
locomotive is used on all steam railways within the city limits. 

If these corporations, which might as well buy electricity as the ma- 
chinery, coal, and water with which to produce it, were to unite in a 



438 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

common plan to provide the electricity needed in their operations by the 
adoption of the best available methods, the saving to each in capital ex- 
penditure would be very great, and the decreased cost of their supply of 
electricity would make an important addition to their earnings applicable 
to the payment of dividends; while, most important of all, the citizens 
of New York would have solved for them the garbage, smoke and very 
largely the water questions. 

I believe the contemplated plans of the corporations above named, which 
can be shown to be based upon an imperfect knowledge of the subject, 
will stand in the way of vast public interests, and, so believing, I have 
said to representatives of some of those companies that the near future 
would demonstrate the projected power stations and systems of electrical 
distribution incidental to the character of such stations, to be as far from 
the best as are the old cable systems for the propulsion of cars. 

I write this letter because I believe these subjects are just now worthy 
of investigation, discussion, and elaboration. 

GEORGE WESTINGHOUSE. 

New York, Jan. 9, 1900. 

PLANTS FOR USING REFUSE. 
To the Editor of The New York Times: 

I have been much impressed by the suggestions of Mr. Westinghouse's 
letter of the 9th published in The Times of the loth inst. It suggests 
thoughts far more wide reaching than at first may appear. 

The primary principle which underlies its text is that of the combination 
of all the essential public utilities in such manner as to insure the most 
economical production possible. This does not, in this case, mean so much 
a reduction of total costs to the public as an increase of availability of the 
product for the average citizen. When gas is permanently reduced to 50 
cents per 1,000 cubic feet we may all use it in our kitchens and to some 
extent for heating and in manufacturing, while the city will employ it in 
making more extended and efficient the public lighting outside the range 
of the electric light. When the electric light can be supplied at a half or 
two-thirds its present average cost, the urban lighting of our communities 
will be doubled in area and efficiency, and the comfort of honest citizens 
and their safety and the repression of disorder and crime will be vastly- 
greater than now. As is almost invariably the fact, the reduction of price 
and costs will be met not so much by saving as by extending the benefits 
of all utilities. When garbage can be made to contribute to our comfort 
and health instead of being a perpetual menace, our householders will find 
comfort in that fact, and our taxpayers will be relieved. 

In every city in the country this combination of all sources of power in 
a single center and the production of heat, light, power, and electricity, 
and the incineration profitably and wholesomely of all garbage should be 
provided for. Such a wise and sound method of engineering these enter- 
prises would enable many a small city or even village to supply its people 
with water and light, and to relieve itself from the dangers of typhoid- 
charged water and of fever-breeding garbage, whereas it must otherwise 
wait many years for the comforts of modern life. The gas, electric, and 
water supply "plants," and the garbage incineration arrangements should 
all be combined, not so much to reduce costs of product and of necessary 
expenditures as to make it practicable for our cities to secure well-lighted 
streets, an ample supply of pure water artesian if possible for drinking 
and industrial purposes, a complete and useful disposal of refuse matter, 
and all at minimum charge in the tax levy. But it is the wide distribution 
of these great blessings rather than the reduction of the aggregate cost 
to the city of such charges that should be sought. 



THE UTILIZATION OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 439 

Mr. Westinghouse has himself done much to render this important 
change practicable, not simply in his contribution to the art of electric 
lighting, but also, and more extensively and in a more important degree 
than is generally realized, in his work in the direction of placing beside 
the steam engine as a source of industrial power a distinctly dangerous 
rival in the gas engine of large power, gas engines of 500 and 600, and, in 
a few instances, of 1,500 horsepower, and operating with exceptional 
economy, having already been produced. The scheme for the conversion 
of the potential energy of our garbage into useful power, as a part of the 
larger plan, is by these facts rendered so much the nearer practicable, and 
the day of this form of industrial extension so much the closer at hand. 

We find ourselves, as Mr. Westinghouse himself has elsewhere stated it, 
in "A New Industrial Situation." Happily, it is one in which all parties 
to the present and older situation may be advantaged. The realization of 
this proposed modernization of the city public utilities in this manner will 
extend the market for the sale of electric light and for gas, and thus 
increase the profits, as always occurs, on the extended business. It will 
make our very wastes, by way of the kitchen door, a source of health and 
profit and free us from some of the most serious of all the risks and dis- 
advantages of crowded city life. Where it is practicable in the usual case 
in fact, to introduce the provision of needed power for a pure-water 
supply in the scheme, the free use of wholesome water will become a 
continually growing source of health and comfort and godliness. 

Nowhere in the world is there a greater opportunity offered for the full 
exemplification of this plan and its economical advantages than in New 
York, and nowhere is it possible to accomplish more for a crowded popula- 
tion than in that city. With pure water in plenty for the poorest, liberal 
use of electricity for light and power, and of gas, where suitable for 
lighting, and in the now common and economical forms of gas engines of 
every magnitude, from 1,500 horsepower down, with sanitary conditions 
perfected by proper disposal of garbage and sewage, New York should 
become an ideal residence city. Nature has there done her best, and it 
only remains for man to do his very best in the light of modern science. 

This is hardly less true of all large cities, but that is not the most or the 
best possible. The larger proportion of our people, so far as urban at all, 
live in small cities, and these may, under such ideal conditions as are here 
contemplated, become at a comparatively early stage in their growth well 
lighted, healthfully provided with water, and sanitarily insured against 
danger from refuse, now a source of sickness and death, and at a reason- 
able cost, may be given all the comforts of city life. 

R. H. THURSTON. 

Ithaca, N. Y., Jan. 12, 1900. 

The exceptionally good opportunity pointed out by these gen- 
tlemen for refuse utilization and power production in the city 
of New York was never allowed to be improved. The monopolies 
holding the control of the gas, electric light and power interests 
were powerful enough not only to discourage any attempt at 
utilization of waste, but also to stop efforts in this direction made 
by private parties and the city authorities. 

The situation in New York to-day is practically precisely what 
it was eight years ago. The city gives to a disposal company 
$1.25 a ton to remove the garbage from its wharves, and also gives 



44Q THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

this company all the valuable products derived therefrom. It 
turns over to a contractor the dry refuse, which annually amounts 
to 150,000 tons, for which it receives the nominal return of from 
$40,000 to $50,000. This item is the only one from which the city 
derives revenue from waste. The volume of ashes, something 
like 2,000,000 tons per year, is taken by a contractor from the 
city's wharves, at a cost of $500,000 per year to the city, and is 
deposited on dumps where are annually buried, beyond any 
chance of recovery, 400,000 tons of good coal. This procedure 
may be called "municipal wastefulness" rather than "municipal 
waste utilization." 

TURNING GARBAGE INTO GAS. 

When the foregoing letters of Mr. Westinghouse and Prof. 
Thurston were written the production of gas by the "producer" 
method, and the introduction of gas engines was just beginning. 
Since then some important advances have been made, and the 
use of engines driven by this power has been greatly extended. 
But the method of producing gas from garbage has yet to be 
developed. Some experiments have been made by which it is 
proved that gas can be made from many forms of waste prod- 
ucts, among them being the mixed collection of municipal waste. 
The subjoined special article by an engineer qualified by years 
of practice and experience in the field of gas production gives 
an idea of this possible use of unseparated city refuse. 

THE DISPOSAL OF CITY WASTE BY GAS PRODUCERS 
BY F. C. TRYON, Consulting Engineer 

The use of city waste, such as ashes, refuse and garbage in 
gas producers for the double purpose of incinerating the waste 
and utilizing the products of the process in the form of producer 
gas for power purposes is perfectly practical, and the process of 
disposal of this waste should not be obnoxious to the surrounding 
territory. 

I have examined the tables sent me showing the calorific values 
of the various constituents of this waste material, which I find 
to be about as follows: 



THE UTILIZATION OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 441 

Taking a quantity of 50 tons miscellaneous city refuse as 
gathered in New York the proportions will be: 

f Fine ashes 

Ashes 70% 35 tons { Clinker 

I Coal 

Garbage 20% 10 tons f Moisture 

oolids 



Refuse 10% 5 tons / Combustible 

\ Incombustible 

Ashes (screened) 65% 22.75 to ( ns 

clinkers . 20% 7 . oo 

coal 15% 5-25 

Garbage moisture 70% 7 .00 

solids 30% 3 .00 

Refuse combustible 95% 4-75 

" incombustible 5% 25 

From an analysis of the above we find : 

Coal 5 tons average calorific value 10,000 B.T.U. per Ib. 

Garbage 3 tons solids, average cal. value. . . . 8,243 

7 tons moisture, 
Refuse 4.75 tons, average calorific value .... 8,437 

When the above 50 tons of waste have been screened and 
sorted we have ready for incinerating 19.75 tons - All the re- 
maining 30.25 tons is in the form of fine ashes, clinker, bottles, 
broken glass, etc., available for filling for low lands. When sep- 
arated the clinker is an excellent base for concrete streets and 
walks, and has a value equal to its removal expense. The 19.75 
tons combustible material contains the following B. t. u. : 

5 tons coal 10,000 Ibs., 10,000 B.T.U. perlb. = 100,000,000 

3 tons garbage, sols., 6,000 8,243 ' = 49>4 58,000 

7 tons garbage, moist., 14,000 

4 . 7 5 tons refuse 9>5 " 8 437 " " " = 79,151,500 



19. 75 tons 39,5oo Ibs. 228,609,500 

Deducting the moisture, 7 tons, 14,000 pounds, will leave 12.75 
tons, or 22,500 pounds of dry matter. 

The 19.75 tons (39>5 pounds) of solids will carry 7 tons 
(14,000 pounds) moisture. This will not be prohibitory for 
producer practice. The proper way to handle this would be to 
have the whole mixed collection delivered at a dumping plant. 
Under such a method the ashes are elevated and dropped on to 
screens separating the coarse clinker, the fine clinker, coal and 
fine ash. The clinker and coal are then run through a jig which 
washes the coal from the remainder. The refuse passes over a 
sorting belt where articles of value and all pieces of glass are 



442 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

removed, and the remainder is then carried to a chopping machine 
where it is all cut into small pieces. This fine refuse, which is 
very dry, is then mixed with the wet garbage and all elevated 
into storage bunkers arranged above the producer plant. The 
coal is also stored in adjoining bunkers, and all are arranged so 
that the material in each plant can be spouted direct into the 
producer without further handling. 

The 12.75 tons, or 25,550 pounds of solid matter, carries 
226,6x39,500 B. t. u., or 8,887 B. t. u. per pound', available for use. 
Since this 12.75 tons is all perfectly dry refuse it is necessary to 
use steam in the producer to prevent clinkering of fire bed, and 
the usual practice is y 2 pound steam to i pound fuel. This re- 
quires 1,270 pounds steam to the ton, therefore the addition of 
7 tons (14,000 pounds) moisture contained in the garbage is not 
excessive to keep the heats of producer in reasonable working 
condition. 

A down-draft producer working with open top, so that the 
fuel can be spouted direct to top of fire bed, will at all times 
have the fire under the observation of the attendant, and it can 
be poked and barred as necessary. All hydro-carbons are dis- 
tilled from fuel at top of fire bed and drawn down through bed 
of incandescent carbon, passing from the bottom of the pro- 
ducer a fixed, noncondensable gas. The ashes from the combus- 
tion of this miscellaneous material is barred down from time to 
time mechanically without opening the producer to the inlet of 
air. This ash removal can be arranged for continuous operation, 
if desired, so that fuel will be flowing in at the top of the pro- 
ducer, ashes be taken out of the bottom, and gas drawn off near 
the bottom. 

A producer arranged as described above would easily deliver 
in clean gas 60 per cent, efficiency of the B. t. u. fed to it. Thus 
it would produce 135,965,700 B. t. u. in gas. 

If this volume were the product of twenty-four hours of in- 
cineration it would produce 5,665,237 B. t. u. per hour, easily 
driving 45O-horsepower of gas engines to full load, supplying 
330 kilowatts of electric energy. If this current were sold to an 
electric lighting company at its own cost of production, say 2 
cents per kilowatt per hour, the income from such a plant would 
amount to $53,557.55 per year. The expense of installation de- 



THE UTILIZATION OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 443 

signed to handle 50 tons of miscellaneous city waste collections 
per day would depend very much upon the locality where it was 
erected and the permanency of the plant. 

Assuming a permanent fireproof building two stories high, 
50 x 60 feet, on two lots 25 x 100 feet, concrete construction, the 
cost of building and land in a city of New York equipment 
would be : 

Two GAS PRODUCER PLANTS: 

Two gas engines, electric generators and necessary ma- 
chinery for lifting, sorting and handling the 50 tons 
per day, say $85,000 .00 

COST OF OPERATING PLANT: 

Interest, depreciation, repairs, taxes, and in- 
surance, 18% $i 5,300 .00 

Labor, i superintendent 



2 foremen 

8 men to shift 



13,600 .00 



2 shifts 
Supplies, Water 

Oil f- i, 600 .00 

Waste 



Total cost yearly operation $30,500 .00 

Electric current sold $53.557-55 

Selected waste sold, 855 tons, $2.50 2,137 -5 

$55695-o5 
Cost 30, 500 . oo 

Profit $25,195.05 

The above shows a fair return on the investment, and I am 
convinced that the materials can be utilized as described, and 
that the products will amply repay for the investment, even 
though the profits should not be quite as much as shown. 

One great advantage of this manner of disposal is that there 
is no smoke, smell, or other obnoxious fumes from the plant. 
These are saved in the form of gas. 

The garbage could be disinfected as delivered at the dump in 
a manner that would really increase its calorific value. All dust 
and dirt from the screening of the ashes could be kept within 
the chutes of the building. The selection of a site for such a 
plant should be at a point where the surplus refuse of fine ashes 
and cinders could be handled and disposed of in the least expen- 
sive manner, and at the same time the plant should be located 



THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

in a place where the gathering and delivery of a certain district 
supplying the 50 tons daily should not have too long a haul to 
the dumps, also having in mind the delivery to some main line 
of wire distribution for the electric current to be disposed of. 

The foregoing answers the inquiries usually made, and may be 
of use in determining one of the many ways of utilizing and dis- 
posing of the waste of a municipality. 



The calculations in the foregoing statement are based upon 
data obtained by calorimeter tests in the laboratory. The range 
of these theoretical values is much higher than it is found to be 
in the actual work of disposal by destructor processes. In prac- 
tice there is a difference of nearly one-half less in the calorific 
values per pound than is assumed by Mr. Tryon; consequently 
there would be a corresponding reduction in the results as com- 
pared with what he records. But there must be taken into ac- 
count the fact that the method of the gas producer in dealing 
with this waste is more economical in its operation than any 
form of incinerator can be. It is therefore fair to assume that 
the results obtained from municipal waste in a mixed state by 
the gas producer process would be at least equally good as those 
developed under combustion by forced draft, and that the figures 
submitted in the foregoing statement, while they may appear to 
be rather high, will, if discounted one-half, show that this method 
of waste disposal is one that will return a very fair revenue, far 
more than sufficient for the operation of the plant. Experiments 
have been made with municipal waste under this form of dis- 
posal and have proved successful, although there is no gas pro- 
ducer operating altogether by this fuel. 

UTILIZATION OF REFUSE BY CRUSHING OR GRINDING, AND MANU- 
FACTURE INTO BRIQUETTES. 

Reference has been made to the method of grinding up the 
refuse of the city of Paris to prepare it for use at the adjacent 
market gardens and farming lands. Though this method has been 
in use for three years in three of the city districts, there are no 
reports that show more satisfactory results than those from 
three other districts of Paris where the final disposal is made by 
three Meldrum destructors. 



THE UTILIZATION OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 445 

Meantime, an English town the Borough of Southwark 
placed in operation in October, 1906, an apparatus for crushing 
or pulverizing house refuse, practically without any previous 
sorting, and using the crushed material as a dressing for land. 
The house refuse is brought to the plant in wagons, dumped in 
front of the machines, and shovelled into the crushers about 
5 per cent, of large material being thrown out. From the crush- 
ers the material falls into conveyors that discharge into railway 
cars in which it is carried to purchasers. 

They have found it valuable for use on heavy soils and grass 
land and the sales have increased from 203 tons in October, 1906, 
to 925 in March, 1908. The average selling rate is about 56^2 
cents per long ton, which includes hauling. During three months 
in 1907 it was necessary to store the material, which was sold 
later. 

After operating for one year it was decided to double the 
capacity of the plant so as to deal with all of the refuse of the 
town. The new machines are made somewhat heavier than the 
first ones and it is believed that this will permit reducing the cost 
of beaters and grids. Operating two plants will also effect a 
saving on the labor of each. 

The first plant consisted of two machines, which, with motors, 
shafting, etc., cost about $8,300, or $11,000, including foundations 
and buildings. At first, difficulty was experienced in the break- 
ing of various parts of the plant by the iron and steel found in 
the refuse. This was overcome by replacing these parts by 
heavier ones. 

This plant was described by the borough engineer of South- 
wark, Mr. A. Harrison, in a paper read at the recent Municipal, 
Building and Public Health Exhibition. In conclusion he stated 
that he preferred this plant to a destructor as it occupied very 
little space and crushed the refuse without the slightest nuisance 
from dust or smell and practically dealt with the whole of it. It 
has also been found that a considerable quantity of food con- 
demned by the Sanitary Department could readily be disposed of 
by passing it through the crushers with the other refuse. 

The material treated as above described is the ash bin refuse 
produced by English families, who dump ashes, garbage and all 
house refuse into one bin or receptacle. 



446 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

The following extracts from a paper by Mr. Herbert Coales, 
Town Surveyor, Market Harborough, describes the machinery 
and his method of treating this crushed or pulverized material 
for manufacture into fuel: 

COALESINE FUEL: UTILIZATION OF HOUSE REFUSE 

The author has proposed to destroy refuse in a remunerative manner 
by converting it into fuel briquettes called "Coalesine" and burning it 
in works, boilers or other grates, without the construction of special 
furnaces. If such a hygienic and remunerative method of disposal can be 
demonstrated, then no pecuniary hardship will accrue to any town through 
any anti-tipping enactment that may be hereafter passed. Two main 
reasons may be indicated for converting ashbin refuse into fuel : 

(1) Crude refuse is a nuisance, which may be abated by subjection to 
fire. 

(2) Crude refuse is a fuel, which may be utilized in the production 
of heat. 

PULVERIZATION OF REFUSE 

The Patent Lightning Crusher Co., of the Southwark Engineering 
Works, have perfected a machine, known as the dust manipulator, which 
instantly converts crude ashbin refuse into a material resembling garden 
mould in appearance. The machine is a high speed centrifugal-force disin- 
tegrator, pulverizer and mixer combined. The hammers, weighing 50 Ibs. 
each, of special alloy steel, are hung on an axle in a steel box; this axle 
makes 1,000 revolutions a minute. The refuse is fed by a shovel into a 
hopper, and can be passed through the manipulator at the rate of from 
4 to 5 tons per hour. The Southwark Borough Council have four of these 
machines at work, and the facility with which they disintegrate tins, old 
sacking, wood and what not, is most surprising to those who see the 
machines at work for the first time. Such large articles as old trays or 
buckets are picked out from the refuse by hand, and any obstinate metal 
which cannot be reduced by the hammers is automatically ejected from 
the machine by a door at the front. It has been proposed in the past to 
pulverize crude refuse in mortar mills, etc., but salmon tins, old garments 
and books, or pieces of wire, for instance, cannot be reduced to a fine 
material by such means. Therefore, until the Patent Lightning Crusher 
Co. introduced the manipulator, there was no machine on the market to 
effectually reduce crude ashbin refuse to a fine uniform consistency, in 
which state only can it be briquetted. 

COALESINE FUEL 

To convert the pulverized material from the manipulator into innocuous, 
serviceable fuel briquettes, three things are necessary: 

(1) Addition of a deodorizer. 

(2) Addition of an agglutinate. 

(3) Addition of an enriching -ingredient. 

Most fortunately for the simplicity and cheapness of the manufacture 
of briquettes, tar is both a deodorizer and an agglutinate, as well as a 
high class of fuel; I Ib. of tar will evaporate n Ibs. of water. By the 
incorporation, therefore, of about 18 gallons of tar to the ton, the pul- 
verized refuse is deodorized, agglutinated, and enriched by one operation. 
The enrichment has the effect of adding 100 per cent, to the calorific value 
of poor refuse, and 50 per cent, to refuse of a good calorific value. But 
fuel in the form of slack does not give the best combustion results; it is 



THE UTILIZATION OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 447 

necessary, therefore, to make the material up into briquettes, in Which form 
it is easy to handle, to store and to burn. 

The proportion of 18 gallons to the ton of pulverized material does not 
allow the tar to escape through the grate bars when subjected to the heat 
of the fire, nor to give off smoke from the chimney shaft through incom- 
plete combustion. 

The approximate cost of plant, including manipulator, mixer, briquette 
press, buildings, and power to convert 10,000 tons of ashbin refuse per 
annum into coalesine fuel is from 2,000 to 2,500; or, say, an initial 
capital outlay of from 45. to 5s. per ton of refuse .to be dealt with in 
one year. 

From the tabulated statement prepared by Mr. Wm. Jones, Assoc. M. 
Inst. C* E., of Colwyn Bay, in October, 1907, it appears that the initial 
cost of installing refuse destructors complete (taking the average of sixty- 
nine towns) is i6s. 5d. per ton of refuse to be dealt with in one year. 

The approximate cost of converting ashbin refuse into coalesine fuel, 
including labor, power, tar, wear and tear, and loan charges, is calculated 
at about 45. per ton. 

CALORIFIC VALUE OF COALESINE FUEL 

When one pound of crude refuse will evaporate : 

(a) i Ib. of water, coalesine fuel will evaporate 2% Ibs., or .25 the 
value of best coal. 

(b) i l / 2 Ib. of water, coalesine fuel will evaporate 2^ Ibs., or .31 the 
value of best coal. 

(c) 2 Ib. of water, coalesine fuel will evaporate 3^4 Ibs., or .36 the value 
of best coal. 

(The calorific value of best coal is taken at I Ib. evaporating 9 Ib. of 
water.) 

Roughly speaking, then, coalesine fuel may be taken as having an 
average calorific value of one-third that of best coal. Where the local 
price of coal is known, therefore, the relative value of coalesine fuel may 
be easily found by dividing the price of coal by three, and comparing 
the results with 45 a ton (the cost of producing coalesine fuel). For 
instance, taking coal at i8s. a ton and dividing by three we get 6s., and 
6s. less 45. (cost of coalesine fuel) is 2s., this being the balance in favor 
of coalesine fuel. Where, however, at present a town is paying 2s. a ton 
(say) to dispose of its refuse, that town would naturally be 2s. a ton to 
the good if the coalesine fuel were sold merely to pay for itself. 

Coalesine fuel can be burned by itself or in conjunction with coal to 
suit the varying steam requirements of consumers. It is obvious that the 
addition of coal in no way detracts from the pecuniary advantages obtained 
by the use of coalesine fuel, while at the same time the hygienic object is 
equally attained. 

The figures given by Mr. Harrison as the cost of operating the 
original plant of two pulverizers are as follows: 

The plant is driven by two 40 h.p. electric motors. The cost of 
power, labor and other expenses is about 37 cents per ton after 
taking credit for amount realized by sales. This is divided as 
follows: Electric power, 16 cents; labor, 27 cents; repairs, 6 
cents; oil and sundries, 2 cents; total, 51 cents per ton deducting 
the net 14 cents realized from the sales, leaves a net cost of 37 
cents per ton for disposal by the crushing process. 



448 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

Now, if the method of Mr. Coales for producing a practical 
fuel from the crushed refuse is sound, then the returns from the 
equivalent coal values should be sufficient to show a large return 
of revenue over expenses. 

The value of unseparated house refuse containing from 70 
per cent, to 80 per cent, of matters which have no fertilizer prop- 
erties seems very uncertain when applied directly to the ground. 
In certain cases of low marshy tracts which are to be reclaimed 
and made suitable for better cultivation, the use of such a pre- 
liminary charge of finely divided substances is undoubtedly of 
service, but the actual benefits to be had when applied to gardens 
and farming lands is still to be ascertained. 

This process seems to be the latest English experiment in the 
utilization of the town's refuse, and has attracted a good deal of 
attention from engineers and others interested in the question. 
The work of this Southwark plant and its results will be observed 
with interest. 

In this country many attempts to manufacture a fuel from 
garbage have been made, but so far as known the cost of the 
preliminary process has exceeded the value of the product The 
experiments of Mr. Andrew Engel to mix with night-soil a 
deodorant, which should also give it a value for fertilizer or for 
fuel, have been carried on at two towns under favorable condi- 
tions, but as yet no satisfactory results are reported. 

THE PRESENT CONDITION OF WASTE DISPOSAL WORK. 

Reference has been made to the work of the American Public 
Health Association in procuring and tabulating the information 
of the various methods of waste disposal, and of printing in 
permanent form the results of investigations of the members of 
the associations in various towns and cities. They report only 
accomplished facts, and deal with these from the standpoint of 
the sanitarian, and are not concerned with the business side of 
the question. 

Nine years ago at the meeting of the association in Minne- 
apolis, papers were presented that gave a fairly accurate account 
of the position of this question after some ten years of effort to 
establish better methods of dealing with the disposal of waste in 
American communities. 



THE UTILIZATION OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 449 

The author's contribution was a statement of the general con- 
ditions then prevailing ending with a summary as follows: 

"Ten years of garbage disposal work in American cities has 
seen the establishment of sixty-five furnaces in fifty-four cities 
and towns, besides the trial and failure of about ten experiments 
of one kind or another in crematory furnaces. The same period 
has witnessed the construction of twenty large and expensive 
plants for the reduction of garbage by mechanical and chemical 
methods. Of these, eight now survive, and of these only three 
or four are reported to be satisfactory and economical, among 
the latter being those of New York, Philadelphia and Boston. 

The expense of construction in these furnaces has not been 
large, or the cost of maintenance excessive when compared with 
the results accomplished. From the beginning the tendency has 
been to overrate the capacity and efficiency of the furnace, and 
underestimate the quantity of waste produced ; for it always 
happens that when a way is provided for disposal of worthless 
matters, the quantities invariably increase. When compared with 
what is yet to be . done, what has actually been accomplished is 
of small magnitude. Because of the limitations of the furnace 
capacity in consequence of its principles of construction, there is 
no example on a large scale of the disposal of all classes of waste 
by cremation. The smaller cities and towns have found cremators 
useful and efficient, but limited strictly in capacity and perform- 
ance. The large cities, with one exception, have not ventured 
upon their adoption, though there has been shown a willingness 
to put them to trial under conditions that could hardly be met 
the destruction of all kinds and quantities of miscellaneous mat- 
ters at small cost. 

We have reached a turning point where some larger and more 
efficient means must be brought forward if the best methods are 
to be adopted. Clearly, the great interest shown in the subject, 
and the growth of public sentiment in favor of the sanitary treat- 
ment of waste has created a demand that must be met. 

The example of two cities in turning to account such part of 
refuse as can be easily selected from the general mass, indicates 
what may be done in this direction. When once separation is 
determined upon, and the householder fully acquainted with the 
necessity and expediency of this measure, he readily falls into 



45 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

line, and cheerfully contributes his personal quota to the general 
reform. 

We can depend confidently upon a sure revenue from what has 
been previously thrown out as worthless if not in articles and 
substances saved and sold, then in fuel value for other uses. 

While American cities have been slowly working out the prob- 
lem of waste treatment, other countries, proceeding on parallel 
lines, with a wider experience born of stern necessity for the 
sanitary disposal of the wastes of a crowded population, and with 
far more liberal expenditure of funds for this department of 
municipal work, have gone more directly to the end and reached 
conclusions that apply equally well in both countries. Why may 
we not profit by the example set us, and turn into power the use- 
less matters we are burdened with? 

There is no good reason to be urged against this. The inventive 
genius of the American engineer will speedily find means to adapt 
methods and measures that are labor and money saving, and find 
uses for power that, so to speak, is created out of nothing. Give 
him a chance to do this, and the cities of America can realize the 
predictions of scientists who, three years ago, said that each com- 
munity may be served with electric light created from the natural 
waste and outcast substances that we now pay huge sums to get 
rid of. 

From a consideration of the relative methods of disposal in 
use in this country, and comparison with those which are found in 
favor abroad, we may fairly draw the following conclusions: 

First : But two ways or means for dealing with this question are avail- 
able, and the relative advantages and special adaptations to the local 
conditions can only be determined by scientific and expert investigations 
and comparison. The subject has gone beyond the speculative and experi- 
mental stage, and reached the point where more definite and exact knowl- 
edge is needed. This can best be had by calling in the assistance of experts 
who will make full examinations and submit reports covering the whole 
ground. 

Second: The indications are that a combination of the two systems 
of reduction and cremation at points where the two can be advantageously 
combined because of the presence of sufficient quantities of municipal 
waste, is the ideal way in which to treat city waste. Each of these methods 
developing along parallel lines have come to a place where they begin to 
converge to a common point. Reduction has demonstrated its ability to 
secure a percentage of value at a greater or less cost, according to the 



THE UTILIZATION OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 451 

imount of garbage treated, but it does not provide for the still greater 
proportion of city waste left untouched. Cremation destroys the com- 
bustible and a portion of the putrescible, and recovers little or nothing of 
value in the process ; but the employment of the heat derived from crema- 
tion furnishes an additional source of revenue that should now be utilized. 

Third: A city which has or will put into force a system of separation 
and collection of garbage, ashes and refuse, and will erect a disposal plant 
which shall proceed by treating the garbage, when in sufficient quantities, 
by the modern improved process of extracting the valuable commercial 
products, and shall operate its plant by the steam power which is obtained v/ 
by the combustion of such worthless parts of the dry refuse as may be left 
after sorting out the salable portions, and that will, in addition, bring to 
this point such proportions of ashes from houses as can be utilized for 
fuel for the destructor, will then have all its waste disposed of in a way 
entirely sanitary, and will realize a profit in the operation which, in a 
comparatively short time will repay not only the cost of the works and 
their operation, but will return in steam power, when utilized for mechani- 
cal purposes, a very considerable amount of profit. 

Fourth: When the quantity of garbage produced is insufficient in 
amount or impracticable for treatment by reduction methods, there can be 
erected a General Waste Disposal Station which will receive every class 
of waste in a mixed condition, and by employing the best available de- 
structive agencies can transform this worthless matter into electrical energy 
as principal or auxiliary power for steel lighting or other useful municipal 
purposes. 

Fifth: Any smaller city or town can employ destructive methods for 
its waste disposal, with guaranteed immunity from nuisance, at a smaller 
relative cost for operating the work than has been known since the begin- 
ning of this movement twelve years ago. 

At this time (September, 1908) there have been built one hun- 
dred and eighty furnaces of various types of construction, of 
which one hundred and two have been discontinued and passed 
out of service. 

Of the reduction plants, including all the various examples em- 
ployed in municipal work, forty-five plants have been or are about 
to be erected, and nineteen of these have been discontinued or 
replaced by others. There are now twenty-three in active service 
and three others under construction. 

The conclusions and deductions in the foregoing statements are 
still applicable to the present situations. There still remains but 
two ways to deal with waste in a sanitary and satisfactory way. v 7 
The choice between these two means is still to be determined by 
the particular conditions that apply to each municipality. 



452 THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL WASTE. 

There is still the need of better engineering advice to determine, 
in the shortest time, with the least difficulty, that form of dis- 
posal means which shall be most sanitary and most efficient for 
any given case. 

With a more accurate knowledge of the results to be had from 
reduction processes, and the improvement in construction and 
management of the plants, the towns are now able to determine 
to what extent these may be employed in municipal work, either 
directly under municipal control or by contract for a term of 
years. 

The disposal of waste by incineration has made slower ad- 
vances than was expected, but with the elimination of the vision- 
ary, crude and vicious elements that have heretofore obstructed 
progress, and with a better system of accounting and publishing 
of results, and more than all the introduction of improved and 
reliable forms of furnaces and destructors proven by trial to be 
adapted to American work, this system of waste disposal will 
now be far more serviceable than heretofore. 

It is perhaps inevitable that any great movement for bettering 
public health and public comfort and which is contingent upon 
its success for the favor and endorsement of the municipal au- 
thorities should be one attended with many reverses and much 
lost time, labor and money. 

The conditions of American municipal government with the 
constant periodical change of authority are not favorable to the 
thorough investigation of this subject, and it has not received the 
same attention and intelligent treatment which has been given to 
other departments of municipal work like water, sewage, roads 
or parks. But with the growth of public interest in the question, 
with the special study now given to public hygiene and municipal 
sanitation in the technical schools and colleges, and, more than all, 
with the demonstrated public benefit to be had from the adoption 
of these better means for caring for the worthless and dangerous 
matters that must be removed from the life of the people, we may 
hope for more rapid progress, and far more beneficial results to 
the great number of American municipalities, 



INDEX. 

AIR SUPPLY: PAGE 

To Crematories 213 

To Destructors ... 228 

AMERICAN ABATTOIR OIL Co 380 

AMERICAN CONDITIONS 406 

AMERICAN EXTRACTOR COMPANY 217 

AMERICAN GARBAGE CREMATOR COMPANY 168 

AMERICAN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSOCIATION 6, 13, 96, 290 448 

AMERICAN REDUCTION COMPANY 387 

AMERICAN SOCIETY CIVIL ENGINEERS 63, 361, 394 

AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS 16, 290 

ARNOLD PROCESS OF REDUCTION 332 

ASH BIN REFUSE . . 14 

ASHES, MUNICIPAL: 77 

Analysis of 78 

" Cremator 8 1 

' Destructor 80 

" Garbage 8 z 

" Refuse 84 

" Wood 82 

Calorific Values of 205 

Collection Costs, Rochester. 392 

Definition of 77 

Laboratory Analysis of 204 

Volume of Coal in 78 

Value for Various Uses 436 

BAKER M N 9, 240 

BALTIMORE SANITARY AND CONTRACTING Co 292, 364 

BARREN ISLAND REDUCTION PLANT 347, 355 

BENNETT GARBAGE DISPOSAL Co 182 

BEAMAN & DBAS DESTRUCTOR 193 

BILLINGS, DR. J. S 131 

BOSTON, REFUSE DISPOSAL STATION 48 

Report of Commission 24 

Reduction Plants 331 

General Disposal Work in 337 

Semet-Solvay Process at 334 

BOULGER. BENJ 149,159 

BRANCH, Jos. G 165 

BREYMAN, T./I. 152 

453 



454 INDEX. 

PAGE 

BRIDGEPORT BOILER Co 172 

BRITISH DESTRUCTORS, REPORT ON 361 

BROOKLYN REFUSE DISPOSAL STATIONS 67, 68, 69 

BROWNLEE, ALEXANDER 170 

BUFFALO REFUSE DISPOSAL STATION 70 

Reduction Works 292 

CALDER, WM 283 

CALORIFIC VALUES OF: 

General Waste 203 

Equivalent Coal 204 

Per Pound of Refuse 204 

Steam Ashes 205 

Range of 206 

Of Other Waste Matters 208 

CAMBRIDGE REFUSE DISPOSAL STATION 190 

CHAPIN, DR. C. H 325 

CHIMNEYS 230 

CARTS FOR COLLECTION OF ASHES 66 

CINCINNATI REDUCTION Co 376 

CLASSIFICATION OF: 

Municipal Waste 13 

Garbage Crematories 145 

Refuse Destructors 220 

CLINKER FOR FILTER BEDS 270 

For Other Uses 275, 286 

COAL: 

Analysis of American , 77 

Heating Values in Waste 79 

Percentage in House Ashes of 78 

COLUMBUS, O.: 

Collection Statistics 316 

Reduction Works 315 

Report upon Disposal Methods . 317 

CREMATORIES AND INCINERATORS: 

Chronological List of Municipal Installations 114 

List of Installations for U. S. Government 126 

List of Installations for Institutions, etc i29 

Anderson Garbage Crematory 308 

Bennett 182 

Boulger 1 59 

Branch Incinerator 165 

Brown Crematory 1 68 

Brownlee 17 

Davis Furnace ... 107, 1 56 

De Berard Portable Crematory 196 

Decarie Garbage Incinerator 179 



INDEX. 455 

CREMATORIES AND INCINERATORS (Continued) : PAGE 

Dixon Garbage Crematory 152 

Dundon Incinerator 182 

Engle Cremator 104, 149 

Mann Night Soil Furnace 103 

Morse-Boulger Destructor 161 

Morse Destructor Furnace ?9i 

Municipal Engineering Co. Crematory 162 

Parsons Refuse Incinerators S3, 59 

Pearce-LaChapelle Crematory 360 

Public Service Co. Incinerator 67, 190 

Rider Garbage Furnace 102 

Sanitary Engineering Co. Furnace 183 

Smead Travelling Crematory 198 

Smith, F. P., Garbage Crematory 186 

Smith, H. B., " /,.... 172 

Smith-Siemens 102, 106, 174 

Stearns Refuse Incinerator 61 

Thackeray Garbage Incinerator 109, 1 10, 1 58 

U. S. Government Garbage Furnace 99 

Vivarttas Garbage Furnace 176 

Weislogel Refuse Incinerator 387 

Wright Garbage Furnace 1 64 

Operating Costs of 432 

Method of Disposal by 428 

Conditions Necessary for Success 212 

CRAVEN MACDONOUGH 78, 346 

DAVIS, DR. L. M 156 

DEAD ANIMALS 18 

DE BERARD, C. J 195 

DECARIE, F 178 

DECARIE MFG. Co 1 78, 3 58 

DESTRUCTORS: 

Classification of 220 

Cell Destructors 220 

Continuous Grate Destructors 227 

Combined with Electricity Works 2 7 1 , 2 74 

Combined with Electrical Traction 272, 286 

Combined with Electrical Lighting Plants 66, 273 

Combined with Sewerage Works 265 

Combined with Water Works 275 

Delivery of Waste to 231 

Distribution of British Destructors 283 

Beaman & Deas Destructor 222 

Fryer Destructor 221 

Heenan & Froude Destructor 231, 232 

Horsfall Destructor 223 



456 INDEX. 

DESTRUCTORS (Continued) : PAGE 

Meldrum Simplex Destructor 227 

Sterling Destructor 225 

Warner Destructor 224 

In American Practice : 

Meldrum Destructors at Westmount, Canada 242 

" Seattle, Washington 249 

" Schenectady, N. Y 253 

Heenan & Froude Destructors at Vancouver, B. C 254 

New Brighton, N. Y. . 256 

Quantities Consumed by 23 5 

Utilization of Heat from 224 

DETROIT REDUCTION Co 374 

DISPOSAL OF MIXED WASTE 29 

DIXON-SANITARY CREMATORY Co 1 52 

DIXON, SAMUEL r 52 

DUMPS: 

Insanitary Conditions at 9-10 

Sorting at 1 1 

DUNDON IRON WORKS 182 

DUST PREVENTION 230 

EDGERTON, CHAS 368 

EDSON DEVELOPMENT AND MACHINERY Co 395 

ENGINEERING PROBLEMS 140 

ENGINEERING RECORD 96 

ENGINEERING NEWS 316 

ENGLE, ANDREW 148 

ENGLE SANITARY AND CREMATION Co 104-149 

EVAPORATION PER POUND OF MIXED WASTE 272 

Rubbish 57-63 

EXCRETA : 

Definition of 15 

Disposal of 19 

Cost of Removal 1 6 

FAILURES, PRINCIPAL CAUSES OF 137-138 

FELLOWES, F. L 243 

FETHERSTON, J. A 22, 106, 202, 259, 361 

FISCHER, CHAS. C 3 8 9 

FISHER, E. H 39 1 

FLEISCHMAN, H. A ; ......... 292-311 

FOLWELL, PROF. A. PRESCOTT 16 

FORCED DRAFT 224 

FORTY-SEVENTH STREET INCINERATOR, NEW YORK CITY 53 

FRANKLIN INSTITUTE, PHILADELPHIA 410 

FRYER, ALFRED 264 

FUEL: 

Ashes as 79 



INDEX. 457 

FUEL (Continued") : PAGE 

Garbage as 108 

Refuse as 57 

Stable Refuse as 86 

FURNACE CONSTRUCTION : 211 

GARBAGE: 

Agricultural Utilization of 39, 448 

Analysis of 37 

Ashes of 24 

Collection Statistics of 

of, in Philadelphia 367 

" " Rochester. 392 

" " Syracuse 24 

" Statistics of General Government 35 

Composition of 3 6-3 7 

Definition of 14 

Feeding to Swine , 3.251 

Fuel Value of 108 

Methods of Collection i 

Municipal Collection Costs 325 

Separate Collection of 36 

Volumes of 2 5-29 

Weights of 38 

GENESSEE REDUCTION Co 393 

GENERAL ELECTRIC Co., SCHENECTADY 210 

GENERAL GOVERNMENT-STATISTICS OF GENERAL REFUSE COLLECTION 35 

Laws Respecting Water Pollution 7 

Decision Respecting Collections 396 

Fertilizing Value of Street Sweepings 85 

GOODRICH, W. FRANCIS ' 216-218, 262 

GOODNOUGH, X. H . , 24, 338 

GREGORY, J. H 316 

HARLAN & WOLFE DESTRUCTOR REPORT. 208 

HEENAN & FROUDE DESTRUCTOR 253, 254, 256 

HERING, RUDOLPH 96, 107, 156, 205, 298, 304, 315, 340 

HOOK, J. H . . . .- i 56 

.HOLMAN & WENDEL, PROFS 169 

HORSFALL DESTRUCTOR 200 

HYGIENE AND SANITATION , 140 

INDIANAPOLIS SANITARY Co 375 

INCOME FROM REDUCTION PROCESS 404 

From Refuse Sorting 47, 52, 59, 74 

JACKSON, WM 24, 338 

KOYL, C. HERSCHEL 79, 343, 434 

LA CHAPELLE & PEARCE , 3 56 

LEWIS & KITCHEN 162 

LITTLE, E. J 1 52 



458 INDEX. 

PAGE 

LOCATIONS 235 

LOWELL REFUSE INCINERATOR 21 

LYON, J. B 162 

MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY 169 

MELDRUM SIMPLEX DESTRUCTOR 193-200, 210-247, 251-253 

METHODS OF COLLECTION: 

Individual 4 

Licensed 4 

Contract 5 

Municipal 5 

Statistics of 7 

METHODS OF DISPOSAL 4 

MUNICIPAL REFUSE DISPOSAL STATIONS: 

Boston Utilization Station 48 

New York City, East i6th St 46 

New York City, 4?th St 55 

New York City, Delancy St 59 

Brooklyn Refuse Station, East New York 63 

3rd St 68 

39th St 69 

Buffalo Refuse Disposal Station 70 

Lowell .74 

NATIONAL EQUIPMENT Co 165 

NEW BEDFORD EXTRACTOR Co 409 

NEWBURGH REDUCTION Co 397 

NEW BRIGHTON: 

Heenan Destructor 256 

Compositions of Waste in 22 

Collections in 20 

NEW YORK CITY: 

Sanitary Code 42 

Refuse Stations 51, 55, 59 

Waste Collections in 20 

Reduction Works of 347 

General Waste Collection and Disposal Work in '. . 339 

ODORS: 

Various Causes of 108 

PAPER MANUFACTURED IN UNITED STATES 422 

PARSONS, H. DEB 60, 145 

PATENTS OF PRINCIPAL CREMATORY BUILDERS 126 

PECK, E. S 399 

POLLUTION OF STREAMS 6,7 

PORTABLE CREMATORIES 194 

Destructors 201 

POWER SPECIALTY COMPANY 260, 261 

PRAHRAN REFUSE DESTRUCTOR 283 



INDEX. 459 

PAGE 

PROPORTIONS OF WASTE 7 

QUANTITIES, WASTE IN VARIOUS CITIES. . 20, 27, 21, 23, 22, 24, 28,29, 

30.32,35 
REDUCTION PROCESSES IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER: 

Merz Reduction Process, Buffalo 272 

" Milwaukee 296 

Chicago 304 

St. Paul 309 

Denver 309 

Paterson 310 

St. Louis , 3 1 1 

Columbus 314 

Simonin Extraction Process, Providence 323 

" Cincinnati 328 

New Orleans 330 

Arnold Process, Boston 333 

" . New York and Brooklyn 346 

Baltimore 3 64 

Philadelphia 366 

Atlantic City 370 

Newark 371 

Wilmington, Del 371 

Holthaus Process, Bridgeport 379 

Syracuse 381 

New Bedford 383 

Chamberlain Process, Detroit 373 

Indianapolis 375 

Cincinnati 375 

Washington, D. C 376 

Weislogel Process, Vincennes 364 

Jacksonville 387 

American Reduction Process, Reading 387 

York 389 

Edson Process, Dayton 395 

Toledo 396 

Cleveland 397 

Penn Reduction Process, Philadelphia 368 

Rochester 391 

American Extractor Process, New Bedford 407 

Costs of Operating 426 

Disposal of Garbage by 410 

Municipal Plants for 427 

The Number of Plants for. . . , 451 



460 INDEX. 

REFUSE DISPOSAL PLANTS: PAGE 

Boston 48 

Brooklyn 67 

Buffalo 70 

Cambridge 190 

Lowell 74 

New York City 47, 53, 59 

REFUSE: 

Classification of 42 

Collections of 43 

Composition of 48 

Definitions of 42 

Division of 47 

Percentages of. 43 , 48 

Value of 44, 58. 88 

REILLY. LIEUT. H. J 99 

RHINES, F. K 142,152 

ROSS & HOLGATE 241, 243 

RUBBISH: 

Classification of 42 

Definition of 1 1 

Proportions of 58 

Value of 25 

SANITARY CODE, NEW YORK 42 

SANITARY ENGINEERING Co 183 

SANITARY PRODUCT COMPANIES 368 

SANITARY UTILIZATION Co 346, 3 54 

SAVERY, JAS. C 148 

SEABOARD GARBAGE CREMATORY Co 176 

SEATTLE DESTRUCTOR PLANT 249 

SEDGWICK, PROF. W. T 24, 140, 338 

SEMET-SOLVAY AMMONIA PROCESS 334 

SEPARATE COLLECTIONS , 36 

SIMONIN, I. M. . . , 3 2 3 

SMEAD, ISSAC D 145, X 97 

SMITH, H. B i7 2 

SMITH, M. V 1 74 

SMITH, SEYMOUR R. . 1 7 8 

SMITH, FRED P 163, 186 

SPRINGBORN, W. J 399,405 

STABLE REFUSE 84 

ST. Louis REDUCTION Co 3 J 4 

STANDARD TANKAGE & FERTILIZER Co 384 

STANDARD CONSTRUCTION Co 164 

STEARNS, F. L . 61 , 63 

STREET SWEEPINGS 13 

Analysis of 87 



INDEX. 461 

STREET SWEEPINGS (Continued) : PAGE 

Quantities of 84 

Fertilizing Properties of 85 

SYRACUSE REDUCTION Co 381 

TANKAGE : 90 

Analysis of 89 

Definition of 90 

Values of 90, 416 

Quantities of 345,417 

TERNE, PROF. B 334 

TEMPERATURES: 

Nuisances Dependent Upon 236 

Development of High 237 

In American Practice . 238 

In British Practice 237 

THACKERAY, CHAS 145, 158 

THOMPSON, R. H 249 

THURSTON, PROF. R. H 213, 438 

TOLEDO SANITARY REDUCTION Co 396 

TOWNS' REFUSE, DEFINITION OF 14 

Ashes from Combustion of 80 

TRADE WASTE 118 

TR'YON, F. C 440 

UNIVERSAL DESTRUCTOR Co 191 

UTILIZATION OF WASTE: 

Ashes fur Various Uses 436 

By Gas Producer Means 436 

By Crushing or Grinding Process 444 

Garbage Commercial Values 425 

General Summary of Methods 92 

Refuse Utilization 421,423 

VANCOUVER REFUSE DESTRUCTOR '. 254 

.VENABLE, CAPT. W. M 146 

VIVARTTAS, A 176, 183 

WARING, COL. G. E.: 

Report on Garbage Disposal 343 

Work on Commissions 351 

WARNER, GEO. H 148 

WASHINGTON FERTILIZER Co 378 

WASTE, MUNICIPAL: 

American Methods of Disposal 8 

British Methods of Disposal 217 

Classification of 13 

Consolidated Approximate Values of 89 

Definition of 13 

Disposal of Mixed 94 

Disposal by Various Means 4,8 



462 INDEX. 

WASTE, MUNICIPAL (Continued) : p AGE 

General Conditions Respecting ... 448 

Terminology of 13 

Terms Applied to at Various Places 14 

Utilization of 92 

What May be Done in the Future With 450 

WATER GRATES 173 

WEISLOGEL, G 311 

WELTON. B. F 207 

WESTINGHOUSE, GEO 311 

WESTMOUNT REFUSE DESTRUCTOR 242 

WEST NEW BRIGHTON 256 

WHEELWRIGHT. C. S 410 

WOODBURY. H. McG ... 3 57 

WRIGHT, W. B 164 

YARNELL, ROBT 410 

YORK, SAN. REDUCTION Co 389 

YOUNG, W , r 162 



3FTHE 

UNIVERSITY 

OF 



Lewis & Kitchen 

Engineers and Constructors of 

COMPLETE REFUSE 
DISPOSAL PLANTS 

Under the Patents of FRED. P. SMITH, Civil Engineer 

These plants are not excelled for efficiency, good con- 
struction, durability or low initial cost, fl They are 
seldom matched for cleanliness, attractive appearance 
or low cost of operation. ($ Over thirty successful in- 
stallations with never a failure. 




A very attractive Garbage Incinerator Plant at Oak Park, 111 
Capacity, 40 Tons per day. Price, $ 1 4,000. 

ADDRESS 

Chicago, 111., U. S. A. Kansas City, Mo., U. S. A. 
1200 Michigan Avenue 901 Broadway 

Learn about the two new plants at Scranton, Pa. Get Catalogues 



SEWERAGE 



The Designing, Construction and 
Maintenance of Sewerage Systems 

By A. Prescott Folwell 

Editor of Municipal Journal and Engineer 

THIS book is generally recognized as the standard 
work on the theory and American practice of 
sewerage, being used as a text-book in most of 
the engineering schools of the United States, as well as 
by practicing engineers. It is now in the sixth thousand 
of the fifth edition. 

It aims to supply all the general information required 
by city engineers in designing, constructing and caring 
for sewerage systems. In addition, 85 pages are devoted 
to sewage disposal. The author, as a practicing engineer, 
has designed and constructed a large number of sewerage 
systems ; and as Professor of Municipal Engineering for 
several years gave instruction in the subject. 

A brief summary of the contents of the book is as 
follows : 



Part I: DESIGNING. System to be Employed. Disposal by 
Dilution. Amount of Sewage. Flow in Sewers. Flushing and 
Ventilation. Collecting the Data. The Design. Detail Plans. 
Specifications, Contract. Estimate of Cost. 

Part II: CONSTRUCTION. Preparing for Construction. Laying 
out the Work. Oversight and Measurement of Work. Practical 
Sewer Construction. 

Part III: MAINTENANCE. House Connections and Drainage. 
Sewer Maintenance. The Sewage-Treatment Problem. Preven- 
tion of Nuisance. Filtration. Septic Tanks, Contact Filters; 
Sprinkling Filters, other purification methods. List of Purifica- 
tion Plants in the United States. 



The Municipal Journal and Engineer 
231-241 West 39th Street :: :: New York 



Principles of 




Treatment 



By PROF. DUNBAR 

Director o? tHe Hamburg State 
Hygienic Institute 



Translated from the German by H. 6. CalVert, M.Sc. t Ph.D.. F./.C. 



294 PAGES 147 ILLUSTRATIONS PJ^ICE $4.50 



An up-to-date treatise and 
worth its price to those inter- 
ested in the question. 



Contents 

Growth of River Pollution Legal Measures Taken by 
Central and Local Authorities Rise and Development of 
Methods of Sewage Treatment Earlier Views on Methods 
of Sewage Treatment, Their Object and Utility The 
Characteristics of Sewage Objects of Purification Works 
Description of Methods for the Removal of Suspended 
Matters Methods for the Removal of Putrescibllity The 
Disinfection of Sewage Supervision and Inspection of 
Sewage Disposal Works The Utility and Cost of the 
Various Methods of Sewage Treatment. 



THE MUNICIPAL JOURNAL AND ENGINEER 

231-241 West 39th Street New YorK 



MUNICIPAL 
JOURNAL 

ENGINEER 



A weekly publication devoted exclusively to municipal 
improvements, the most important of which are 

WATER SUPPLY 
PAVING AND STREET CONSTRUCTION 

SEWERAGE 

SEWERAGE DISPOSAL 
SANITATION 

THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF 
MUNICIPAL WASTE 

and all other questions in connection with Municipal 
Public Necessities. C[ It is well edited and the infor- 
mation printed is both reliable and practical. C| Subscrip- 
tion price $3.00 a year; a trifle over 5 cents a week. 

MUNICIPAL 
JOURNAL 



ENGINEER 

231-241 WEST 39th STREET NEW YORK 



RETURN TO the circulation desk of any 

* fgjr J 

University of California Library 
or to the 

NORTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
Bldg. 400, Richmond Field Station 
University of California 
Richmond, CA 94804-4698 

ALL BOOKS MAY BE RECALLED AFTER 7 DAYS 
2-month loans may be renewed by calling 

(510)642-6753 
1-year loans may be recharged by bringing books 

to NRLF 
Renewals and recharges may be made 4 days 

prior to due date 

DUE AS STAMPED BELOW 



AUG. 17 



JAN ?.S 1936 



20,000 (4/94) 






r 



U.C. BERKELEY LIBRARIES 



C00702351S 




YC 13250 



I